r__ 


^/s/s/s/s/s/s's/s's/s/s/s/s/s/s/^/s/s's/s/s/s/s/sj^^s^l's/s/; 


LIBRARY 

OF    THE 

University  of  California. 

THE    MARY  JUKSCH    FUND. 

Class 


32 


The  Works  of  James  Buchanan 


This  letterpress  edition  is  limited  to 
/jo  copies,  of  which  this  is 


No....  O 


"8. 


The  Works 

OF 

James   Buchanan 

Comprising  his  Speeches,  State  Papers, 
and  Private  Correspondence 

Collected  and  Edited 
By 

John   Bassett   Moore 

Volume  I 
1813-1830 


Philadelphia    &    London 

J.    B.   Lippincott    Company 

1908 


\ 


jUCKSCtt 


Copyright,   1908 

By 

J.   B.   Lippincott  Company 


:\ 


t0 


J 

^ 


0^ 


Printed  by  J.  B.  Lippincott   Company 
The  Washington  Square  Press,  Philadelphia,  U.  S.  A. 


EDITORIAL    NOTE 


The  publication  of  the  works  of  James  Buchanan,  in  the 
present  comprehensive  form,  was  assured  by  the  action  of  the  late 
Mrs.  Henry  E.  Johnston,  formerly  Harriet  Lane,  who,  toward 
the  close  of  her  interesting  and  well-spent  life,  determined  to 
give  this  final  proof  of  her  devotion  to  her  uncle's  memory.  To 
those  who  have  read  the  excellent  biography  of  Buchanan  written 
by  George  Ticknor  Curtis,  and  published  by  the  Harpers  in  1883, 
it  is  unnecessary  to  speak  of  the  exceptional  relation  which  sub- 
sisted between  Buchanan  and  his  niece,  a  relation  characterized 
on  the  one  side  by  perfect  care  and  confidence,  and  on  the  other 
by  a  loyalty  and  veneration  that  never  wavered. 

It  was  the  fate  of  James  Buchanan,  in  his  seventieth  year, 
when,  at  the  close  of  a  long  and  wearing  public  career,  he  was 
about  to  lay  down  the  burdens  of  office,  to  be  confronted 
with  a  crisis  which  would  have  taxed  the  energy  and  decision  of 
an  Andrew  Jackson  at  thirty-five,  and  concerning  the  wisest  treat- 
ment of  which  even  the  philosophers  of  hindsight  cannot  agree. 
There  has  no  doubt  existed  a  general  tendency,  which  was 
stimulated  by  the  eventual  triumph  of  the  Union  and  the  abolition 
of  slavery,  to  censure  him  for  not  having  assumed  a  peremptory 
and  defiant  attitude  toward  secession  when  it  first  became 
aggressively  active.  But,  even  if  it  be  admitted  that  this  more 
heroic  course  might  have  been  justified  by  the  event,  it  seems 
unreasonable  and  unjust  to  condemn  a  statesman  of  Buchanan's 
age,  political  antecedents,  and  strict  constitutionalism  for  seeking 
to  afford  the  largest  possible  opportunity  for  conciliatory  and 
healing  measures.  Efforts  were  repeatedly  made,  apparently  in 
a  spirit  of  hopefulness,  by  his  successor  as  President,  to  find 
a  basis  of  compromise;  and  when  the  armed  conflict  began,  the 
first  actual  shot  was  not  fired  by  a  soldier  of  the  Union. 
Buchanan's  course  is  explained  and  defended  in  his  monograph 
entitled  "  Mr.  Buchanan's  Administration  on  the  Eve  of  the 
Rebellion,"  which  is  reprinted  in  the  last  volume  of  the  present 
publication.  Much  authentic  matter  on  the  same  subject  may 
also  be  found  in  the  collected  essays  of  the  Honorable  Horatio 


174542 


vi  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

King,  published  in  1895,  under  the  title  "  Turning  on  the  Light: 
A  Dispassionate  Survey  of  President  Buchanan's  Administration, 
from  i860  to  its  Close."  I  desire  also  to  call  attention  to  the 
able  address,  "  Buchanan's  Administration  on  the  Eve  of  the 
Rebellion,"  delivered  by  the  Honorable  W.  U.  Hensel  at  Lan- 
caster, Pennsylvania,  January  24,  1908.  This  paper  has  just 
come  to  my  notice,  and  I  shall  seek  Mr.  Hensel's  permission 
to  reprint  it  in  the  last  volume  of  the  present  publication. 

In  the  light  of  a  restored  national  authority,  with  powers 
vastly  strengthened  not  only  by  constitutional  amendment  but 
also  by  war  and  construction,  it  has  grown  more  and  more  difficult 
to  enter  into  the  spirit  of  the  refinements  which  found  expression 
in  Buchanan's  annual  message  of  December,  i860,  as  to  the  legal 
aspects  of  secession  and  the  powers  of  the  Federal  Government 
in  the  premises.  On  these  questions,  however,  the  message, 
contrary  to  what  often  seems  to  be  supposed,  advanced  nothing 
new.  The  idea  of  a  double  or  divided  sovereignty,  each  part 
supreme  within  its  sphere,  was  a  commonplace  of  American 
political  and  juridical  discussions,  and  was  accepted  as  a  sort  of 
self-evident  truth  by  the  masses,  till  its  practical  impotence  in  the 
face  of  the  attempt  of  a  State  to  secede  suddenly  became  glaringly 
manifest.  Moreover,  this  part  of  the  message  was  substantially 
but  a  transcript  of  an  official  opinion  then  lately  given  to  the 
President  by  his  Attorney-General,  the  Honorable  Jeremiah  S. 
Black,  who  appears  to  have  volunteered  the  service  and  himself 
to  have  drawn  up  the  questions  which  the  President  was  to 
propound  to  him. 

When  we  review  Buchanan's  record  as  a  public  man,  whether 
as  a  Representative  in  Congress  or  a  Senator,  as  Secretary  of 
State  or  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  or  as  President,  there  is 
nothing  that  impresses  us  more  than  his  laborious  industry  and 
his  capacity  for  business.  He  did  not  hold  himself  in  reserve  for 
great  occasions.  He  gave  his  best  from  day  to  day,  maintaining 
a  uniformly  high  level  of  accomplishment.  Where  tact  and 
diplomacy  were  requisite,  he  was  especially  successful.  Di- 
plomacy was  in  reality  his  special  gift.  Both  at  St.  Petersburg 
and  at  London,  he  cultivated  good  will  and  rendered  substantial 
service.  He  was  the  first  Secretary  of  State  to  announce  and 
maintain  the  doctrine  of  voluntary  expatriation  in  its  full  extent. 
He  also  systematized  the  work  of  the  Department  of  State. 

His  personal  integrity  was  beyond  question.  In  such  matters 
he  avoided  even  the  appearance  of  evil. 


EDITORIAL   NOTE  vii 

The  reader  may  observe  that  in  some  cases  the  only  source 
cited  for  a  paper  of  Buchanan's  is  Curtis'  biography.  In  such 
cases  I  was  unable  to  find  the  original  document.  Some  years 
ago,  before  the  Buchanan  materials  were  placed  in  the  Historical 
Society  of  Pennsylvania,  those  used  by  Curtis  passed  through 
a  fire  in  a  storage  warehouse  in  New  York,  and  some  of  them, 
doubtless,   were   destroyed. 

For  aid  in  collecting  materials,  I  desire  to  express  my  special 
obligations  to  Miss  Wylie,  of  the  Department  of  Manuscripts  of 
the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania;  to  my  former  student, 
Samuel  B.  Crandall,  now  connected  with  the  Spanish  Treaty 
Claims  Commission ;  and  to  my  old  friend,  Worthington  C.  Ford, 
of  the  Division  of  Manuscripts  of  the  Library  of  Congress,  whose 
debtors  we  all  are.  I  desire  also  to  extend  my  thanks  to  my 
former  student,  Albert  Marion  Elsberg,  for  assistance  in  the 
revision  of  the  synopsis  of  Buchanan's  career  in  Congress. 

Lastly,  I  should  be  guilty  of  a  grave  omission  if  I  failed  to 
make  my  acknowledgments  to  James  Buchanan  Henry,  Esquire, 
for  constant  interest  and  encouragement.  His  extensive  and 
intimate  acquaintance  with  men  and  affairs,  gained  partly  as 
secretary  to  his  uncle,  President  Buchanan,  has  always  been  at 
my  disposal. 

John  Bassett  Moore. 
New  York,  April  6,  1908. 


CONTENTS  of  VOLUME   I 


Synoptical  Index  to  Buchanan's  Career  in  Congress. 


xv 


1813.  PAGE 

To  Jared  Ingersoll,  February  6 1 

Desires  to  be  deputy  attorney  in  Lebanon  county. 
I8I5. 

Fourth  of  July  Oration 2 

1821. 

To  Judge  Walter  Franklin,  December  21 9 

Comments  on  members  of  Congress— J obn  Randolph — The  Bankrupt  Bill. 
l822. 

Speech  on  Indian  Appropriations,  January  9 11 

Resolution  and  Remarks  on  Militia  Fines,  January  24 20 

Speech  on  the  Bankruptcy  Bill,  March  12 24 

Remarks  on  the  Exchange  of  Stocks,  March  21 43 

Remarks  on  the  Exchange  of  Stocks,  March  30 45 

Remarks  on  a  Proposed  Appropriation  for  the  Repair  of  the  Cumber- 
land Road,  April  9 49 

Remarks  on   a   Proposed  Appropriation   for  Marking  the   Western 

Boundary,  April  25 55 

1823. 

Speech  on  the  New  Tariff  Bill,  February  7 56 

Remarks  on  the  Punishment  of  Crimes,  February  10 70 

To  John  Sergeant,  May  9 71 

Advises  him  against  becoming  a  candidate  for  governor. 
1824. 

Remarks  on  Costs  in  Patent  Cases,  January  5 72 

Remarks  on  the  Erection  of  the  Washington  Monument,  January  15.  78 
Remarks  on  a  Proposed  Duty  on  Cotton  Bagging,  February  16,  17,  19, 

and  26  81 

Remarks  on  a  Proposed  Duty  on  Wheat,  February  27 84 

Remarks  on  a  Proposed  Duty  on  Bar  Iron,  February  28 85 

Remarks  on  the  Duty  on  Woollen  Goods,  March  4 89 

Remarks    on    a    Motion    to    Reduce   the    Proposed    Duty    on    Hemp, 

March  23 89 

ix 


x  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Remarks  on  a  Motion  to  Extend  the  Drawback  System,  March  25. .  95 

Speech  on  the  Tariff  Bill,  April  9 97 

Remarks  on  the  Navigation  of  Western  Rivers,  May  7,  8,  10,  and  11. .  113 
Remarks  on  a  Resolution  Relating  to  the  Sale  of  Lots  in  Washing- 
ton, May  13.    (May  18,  in  the  text,  is  an  error.) 117 

Remarks  on  the  Date  of  Adjournment,  May  18 118 

Remarks  on  a  Bill  for  Occupying  the  Mouth  of  the  Columbia  River, 

December  21   119 

1825. 

To  Thomas  Elder,  January  2 119 

Politics  in  Washington— Prospects  of  General  Jackson  in  the  approaching 
presidential  election. 

Remarks  on  a  Bill  for  the  Relief  of  the  Niagara  Sufferers,  Jan- 
uary 3   121 

Remarks  on  the  Bill  for  the  Punishment  of  Certain  Crimes  Against 

the  United  States,  January  7 124 

Remarks  on  the  Appointment  of  a  Committee  to  Examine, Monroe's 

Accounts,  January  11 125 

Remarks  on  the  Western  National  Road,  January  13 127 

Remarks  on  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal,  January  21 129 

To  Thomas  Elder,  January  24 132 

Report  that  Kentucky  and  Ohio  would  support  Adams. 

Remarks  on  the  Election  of  President,  February  2 133 

Remarks  on  Drawback  Duties,  February  21 136 

Remarks  on  the  Bill  for  the  Suppression  of  Piracy,  March  1 136 

Remarks  on  the  Same  Subject,  March  1 137 

To  General  Jackson,  May  29 138 

The  late  presidential  election — Jackson's  popularity  in  Pennsylvania — References 
to  Richard  Rush  and  John  Sergeant. 

From  General  Jackson,  June  25 139 

The  late  presidential  election— Personal  topics. 

Remarks  on  the  Case  of  Commodore  Porter,  December  15  and  16 141 

Remarks  on  Losses  in  the  Collection  of  the  Customs,  December  27. .  145 

1826. 

Remarks  on  the  Judiciary  System,  January  5 146 

Speech  on  the  Judiciary  System,  January  9  and  10 147 

Remarks  on  the  Appropriations  for  Fortifications,  January  27 167 

Remarks  on  the  Same  Subject,  January  30 171 

Remarks  on  a  Proposed  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  in  Relation 

to  the  Election  of  President  and  Vice-President,  February  20. . . .   172 
To  General  Jackson,  March  8 173 

Jackson's  political  strength  in  Pennsylvania— The  Panama  Mission — Method  of 
electing  the  President  and  Vice-President. 

Remarks  on  the  Dismal  Swamp  Canal,  March  11 174 

Remarks  on  Mr.  Poinsett's  Negotiations  with  Mexico,  March  25....  177 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  I  xi 

Remarks  on  the  Same  Subject,  March  27 179 

Resolution  on  the  Panama  Mission,  April  4 182 

From  General  Jackson,  April  8 183 

Political  sentiment  of  Pennsylvania — The  Panama  question—  South  America 
and  entangling  alliances. 

Speech  on  the  Panama  Mission,  April  11 184 

Resolution  and  Remarks  on  the  Panama  Mission,  April  18  and  20. ..  206 
Remarks  on  a  Bill  for  the  Relief  of  Revolutionary  Officers,  April  24.  211 
To  General  Jackson,  September  21 216 

Politics  in  Pennsylvania — Mr.  Cheves. 

From  Duff  Green,  October  12 217 

Election  of  Adams — The  alleged  "  bargain." 

From   General  Jackson,  October   15 218 

Political  support  in  Pennsylvania— Mr.  Cheves— The  crops. 

To  Duff  Green,  October   16 218 

Election  of  Adams — The  alleged  "bargain." 

Remarks  on  a  Proposed  Grant  of  Land  to  Certain  Asylums  for  the 
Deaf  and  Dumb,  December  11 220 

Resolution  Calling  for  Information  on  the  Panama  Congress,  De- 
cember 14  221 

1827. 

Remarks  on  the  Importation  of  Brandy  in  Small  Casks,  January  3. .  221 

Remarks  on  the  Appointment  of  Charges  d'affaires,  January  9 228 

Remarks  on  the  Bill  for  the  Relief  of  Revolutionary  Officers,  Janu- 
ary 12 229 

Remarks  on  the  Duties  on  Wool  and  Woollens,  January  18 233 

Remarks  on  the  Same  Subject,  January  22 235 

From  General  Jackson,  January  29 237 

Death  of  Buchanan's  brother— The  Panama  question. 

Remarks  on  a  Proposed  Resolution  of  Inquiry  as  to  the  Indemnity 

for  Slaves  Carried  Away,  January  31 2^7 

Remarks  on  Memorials  Relating  to  a  Polar  Expedition,  February  6. .  238 

Remarks  on  the  Duties  on  Wool  and  Woollens,  February  7 239 

Remarks    on    the    Controversy    Between    the    United    States    and 

Georgia,  February  9 243 

Remarks  on  the  Duties  on  Wool  and  Woollens,  February  10 246 

Remarks  on  Outfits  for  Diplomatic  Officers,  February  15 249 

Remarks  on  an  Appropriation  for  the  Cumberland  Road,  February  16.  252 

Remarks  on  Internal  Improvements,  February  20 252 

Remarks  on   an  Appropriation  for  Furnishing  the  White   House, 

February  23  255 

Remarks  on  the  Repair  of  the  Cumberland  Road,  February  24 256 

To  Samuel  D.  Ingham,  July  12 260 

Election  of  Adams—"  Bargain  and  corruption." 

From  General  Jackson,  July  15 261 

Election  of  Adams— Jackson's  statement— Letter  of  Mr.  Beverly. 


xii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

To  Duff  Green,  July  16 262 

Election  of  Adams — Political  conditions  in  Pennsylvania. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Lancaster  Journal,  August  8 263 

Election  of  Adams—"  Bargain  and  corruption  "—General  Jackson's 
address  to  the  public. 

To  Samuel  D.  Ingham,  August  9 268 

Same  subject. 

To  General  Jackson,  August  10 269 

Same  subject. 

From  Duff  Green,  August  11 270 

Same  subject. 

To  Duff  Green,  August  17 270 

Same  subject. 

Remarks  on  the  Protection  of  Domestic  Manufactures,  December  31.  271 


1828. 

Remarks  and  Motion  in  Relation  to  the  Cumberland  Road,  Janu- 
ary 14   274 

Remarks  on  a  Resolution  as  to  a  Court  Martial  at  Mobile,  Janu- 
ary 16   275 

Remarks  on  Retrenchment,  January  23 277 

Remarks  on  Retrenchment,  January  24 280 

Remarks  on  Retrenchment,  January  26 283 

Speech  on  Retrenchment,  February  4 286 

Remarks  on  the  Printing  of  Documents  Relating  to  a  Court  Martial 

at  Mobile,  February  11 312 

Remarks  on  Internal  Improvements,  February  14 313 

Remarks  on  the  Use  of  the  Hall  of  the  House,  March  1 314 

Remarks  on  Meade's  Claim,  March  24 316 

Remarks  on  the  Duties  on  Woollens,  March  27 318 

Remarks  on  the  Same  Subject,  March  28 320 

Remarks  on  the  Sale  of  Certain  Public  Lands,  March  31 329 

Speech  on  the  Tariff  Bill,  April  1  and  2 330 

Remarks  on  the  Duty  on  Distilled  Spirits,  April  8 361 

Amendment  Relating  to  the  Duties  on  Woollens,  April  9 362 

Remarks  on  the  Duty  on  Molasses,  April  15 362 

Remarks  on  Mr.  Barbour's  Explanation,  April  19 363 

Remarks  on  a  Bill  to  Authorize  Railroad  Companies  to  Import  Iron 

and  Machinery  Free  of  Duty,  April  28 363 

Remarks  on  the  Date  of  Adjournment,  April  30 364 

Remarks  on  the  Naturalization  Laws,  May  1 365 

Remarks  on  the  Office  of  Major  General,  May  14 367 

Address  on  the  Establishment  of  Common  Schools,  June 370 

Remarks  on  the  Extension  of  the  Term  of  Exportations  with  Bene- 
fit of  Drawback,  December  11 380 

Remarks  on  the  Bill  for  the  Occupation  of  the  Oregon  River,  De- 
cember 23  382 


CONTENTS  OF  VOLUME  I  xiii 

1829. 

Amendment  to  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill,  January  15 382 

Speech  on  the  Cumberland  Road,  January  19 383 

Remarks  on  the  Proposed  Territory  of  Huron,  January  20 396 

Remarks  on  a  Proposed  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  to  Render 

the  President  Ineligible  for  a  Second  Term,  February  6 397 

Speech  on  the  Cumberland  Road,  February  12 398 

Remarks  on  the  Cumberland  Road,  March  2 418 

Remarks  on  the  Election  of  a  Clerk  of  the  House,  December  7 418 

Remarks  on  the  Appointment  of  Standing  Committees,  December  9. .  419 
Remarks  on  the  Printing  of  the  Annual  Report  of  the  Secretary  of 

the  Treasury,  December  15 420 

Remarks  on  the  Distribution  of  the  Proceeds  of  the  Sale  of  Public 

Lands,  December  30 421 

1830. 

Report  on  the  Case  of  James  Linsey,  January  4 425 

Report  on  Allowances  to  Jurors,  January  4 425 

Report  on  Appeals  and  Writs  of  Error,  January  4 426 

Report  on  the  Case  of  Manuel  del  Barco,  January  4 427 

Report  on  the  Lobster  Fishery,  January  13 428 

Speech  on  the  Judiciary,  January  14 429 

Remarks  on  Diplomatic  Expenses,  February  10 450 


SYNOPSIS   of  BUCHANAN'S   CAREER 
IN   CONGRESS 


HOUSE   OF  REPRESENTATIVES,   1821. 

December  3,  1821. — First  appears  as  a  member  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives from  Pennsylvania.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  513.) 

December  5. — Appointed  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Agriculture. 
(Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  519.) 

December  15. — On  Buchanan's  motion,  the  Committee  on  Roads  and 
Canals  are  instructed  to  inquire  whether,  and,  if  any,  what,  measures  should 
be  adopted  by  the  United  States  in  aid  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware 
Canal  Company.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  549.) 

December  19. — Votes  aye  on  a  motion  indefinitely  to  postpone  a  resolu- 
tion directing  the  President  of  the  Senate  and  the  Speaker  of  the  House  to 
adjourn  their  respective  houses  from  Saturday,  December  22,  till  Wednesday, 
January  2,  1822.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  564,  566,  567.) 

Takes  part  in  the  discussion  of  a  proposal  to  increase  the  liabilities  of 
pension  agents.     (Id.  572-573.) 

December  21. — The  House  having  discussed,  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  a  report  on  the  petition  of  David  Taylor  for  an  indemnity  for 
staves  used  by  General  Wilkinson  as  fuel  for  the  army  when  he  embarked 
at  Gravelly  Point,  New  York,  to  proceed  down  the  St.  Lawrence  River,  the 
Committee,  on  Buchanan's  motion,  rises,  in  order  that  further  time  may 
be  given  for  reflection  upon  the  general  principles  involved  in  the  case. 
(Ann.  17  C  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  583.) 

HOUSE   OF  REPRESENTATIVES    (Continued),   1822. 

January  3,  1822. — Remarks  on  the  Military  Appropriation  Bill.  (Ann. 
17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  630.) 

*  January  9. — Speech  on  an  appropriation  to  meet  a  deficiency  in  connec- 
tion with  Indian  affairs.      (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  682-690.) 

January  11. — Remarks  against  postponing  the  further  consideration  of 
the  bill  making  partial  appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  army.  (Ann. 
17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  704.) 

*  January  24. — Offers  and  makes  remarks  upon  a  resolution  of  inquiry 
concerning  the  collection  of  fines  imposed  by  United  States  courts-martial 
on  militiamen  in  Pennsylvania  for  delinquencies  during  the  War  of  1812. 
Resolution  adopted,  and  Buchanan  appointed  chairman  of  a  committee  of 
five  to  inquire  and  report  thereunder.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  7^7~7^9-) 

January  28. — Votes  nay  on  a  proposed  amendment  to  the  Apportionment 
Bill  under  the  fourth  census.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  824.) 

January  29. — Opposes  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  message  of 
President  Monroe,  of  January  28,  1822,  in  relation  to  the  case  of  Generai 
Jackson  and  Judge  Fromentin.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  827.) 


Ann.= Annals  of  Congress.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 

XV 


xvi  THE  WORKS    OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

January  30. — On  consideration  of  the  Apportionment  Bill,  a  motion  to 
adopt  45,000  as  the  basis  of  representation  was  lost,  Buchanan  voting  aye. 
A  motion  to  adopt  39,000  was  also  lost,  Buchanan  voting  no.  (Ann.  17  C. 
1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  845,  846.) 

January  31. — On  consideration  of  the  Apportionment  Bill,  a  motion  to 
make  the  ratio  of  representation  41,000  was  lost,  Buchanan  voting  aye.  A 
motion  to  make  the  number  38,000  was  also  lost,  Buchanan  voting  no.  (Ann. 
17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  863,  865.) 

February  1. — The  Apportionment  Bill  being  again  under  consideration, 
the  motion  to  insert  41,500  was  lost,  Buchanan  voting  yea.  A  motion  to 
strike  out  40,000  was  lost,  Buchanan  voting  nay.  (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822, 
I.  872,  874,  875.) 

February  2. — A  motion  to  recommit  the  Apportionment  Bill  to  a  select 
committee,  with  instructions  to  strike  out  40,000  and  insert  42,000,  was 
decided  in  the  negative,  Buchanan  voting  nay.  A  motion  to  recommit  with 
instructions  to  insert  38,000  was  lost,  Buchanan  voting  nay.  (Ann.  17  C.  1  s. 
1821-1822,  I.  890.) 

February  4. — Participates  in  a  discussion  on  an  amendment  to  the 
Apportionment  Bill.  The  motion  to  amend  was  lost,  Buchanan  voting  nay. 
A  motion  to  recommit  by  inserting  39,900  instead  of  42,000  was  lost, 
Buchanan  voting  nay.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  905,  906,  907.) 

February  6. — A  proposal  to  insert  42,000  in  the  Apportionment  Bill  as 
the  ratio  of  representation  was  lost,  Buchanan  voting  in  the  negative.  A 
proposal  to  make  it  44,000  was  also  negatived,  Buchanan  voting  nay.  (Ann. 
17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  925,  938.) 

The  bill  was  passed,  Buchanan  voting  yea.     (Id.  947.) 

February  14. — Appointed  a  member  of  a  committee  to  investigate  the 
Post  Office  Department.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  1034.) 

February  21. — Participates  in  the  discussion  on  the  question  of  concurring 
with  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  in  their  amendments  to  the  bill  making 
appropriations  for  the  military  service  of  the  United  States  for  the  year 
1822.     (Ann.   17  C.   1   s.   1821-1822,  I.   1129-1130.) 

February  28. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  resolution 
to  refer  various  parts  of  the  documents  accompanying  the  President's  message, 
in  relation  to  Andrew  Jackson's  transactions  in  Florida,  to  the  Committee 
on  Foreign  Relations,  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  and  the  Committee  on 
Military  Affairs.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  1162.) 

March  1. — The  Apportionment  Bill  being  under  consideration,  an  amend- 
ment providing  that,  in  ascertaining  the  population  of  Alabama,  no  account 
should  be  taken  of  any  enumeration  made  after  March  3,  1822,  was  lost, 
Buchanan  voting  aye.  Other  motions  also  were  made,  on  which  Buchanan 
voted.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  1169-1171.) 

March  2. — Votes  in  the  affirmative  on  the  question  of  concurring  in  the 
amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  the  bill  making  appropriations 
for  the  support  of  the  military  establishment,  in  specifying  the  sum  of  $982,917 
for  the  pay  and  subsistence  of  the  army.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  1182.) 

March  4. — Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  Military  Appropriation  Bill. 
(Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  1193.) 

March  7. — Participates  in  a  discussion  on  a  resolution  relating  to  allow- 
ances which  had  been  made  to  the  Attorney-General,  in  addition  to  his  salary. 
(Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  I.  1235.) 

March  11. — Calls  for  the  consideration  of  the  joint  resolution  from  the 
Senate,  to  fix  the  first  Monday  in  April  for  the  adjournment  of  the  session. 
(Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1250.) 


Ann.=Annals  of  Congress.— C.=Congress— s.=session.— *  =Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    HOUSE,  1822  xvii 

March  12. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Bankruptcy  Bill,  ad- 
mitting others  than  merchants  to  the  benefits  of  the  law.  The  amendment  was 
lost.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.   1276.) 

Votes  for  an  amendment  that  no  certificate  of  discharge  shall  be  operative 
except  as  to  persons  liable  to  become  bankrupts  under  the  act.     (Id.  1277.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  amend  the  bill  so  as  to  admit  all  classes  of  the 
community  to   its  provisions.     (Id.    1281.) 

*  Delivers  a  speech  on  the  bill.     (Id.  1281-1297.) 

On  a  vote  taken  on  the  main  question,  the  Bankruptcy  Bill  was  rejected, 
Buchanan  voting  nay.     (Id.  1298.) 

March  13. — Remarks  in  favor  of  an  amendment  of  the  Rules  of  the 
House,  relative  to  adjournment.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1302.) 

March  14. — Remarks  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  authorizing  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  off  certain  United  States  stocks.  (Ann.  17 
C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1305.) 

March  18.— Remarks  on  the  contested  election  of  Mr.  Reed  and  Mr. 
Causden.  Votes  against  concurrence  with  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  in 
their  amendment  of  the  second  resolution,  denying  the  right  of  General 
Reed  to  the  seat  he  claimed.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  131 1,  1312.) 

March  19. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  amend  the  resolution  concerning 
the  contested  election  of  Messrs.  Causden  and  Reed,  as  amended  in  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  so  as  to  make  it  declare  that,  as  both  had  an  equal  number  of 
votes,  Reed  was  not  entitled  to  a  seat.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1322.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  that  Philip  Reed  is  entitled  to  a  seat 
in  the  House.    The  resolution  was  carried.     (Id.  1323.) 

*  March  21. — Speaks  and  votes  in  the  affirmative  on  an  amendment  to  the 
Exchange  of  Stocks  Bill,  to  extend  a  part  of  the  public  debt  at  a  lower  rate 
of  interest.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1344,  1345.) 

March  26. — Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  Revolutionary  Pension  Bill. 
(Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1371.) 

March  28. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolution  reported  by  the  Committee 
on  Foreign  Relations,  recommending  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of 
the  South  American  provinces  and  making  an  appropriation  to  carry  it  into 
effect.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1403.) 

*  March  30. — Speaks  and  votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  authorizing 
the  exchange  of  certain  stocks.  (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1429-1432, 
1442.) 

April  1. — Votes  aye  on  the  adoption  of  the  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote 
taken  March  30th,  by  which  permission  was  refused  to  Mr.  Garnett,  of 
Virginia,  to  spread  upon  the  journals  his  reasons  for  voting  against  the 
resolutions  to  recognize  the  independence  of  the  South  American  provinces. 
(Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1448.) 

*  April  9. — Speaks  and  votes  in  favor  of  concurring  with  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  in  striking  out  the  appropriation  for  the  repair  of  the  Cumber- 
land Road.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1503-1508,  1514.) 

April  13. — Votes  for  a  motion  to  discharge  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
from  the  further  consideration  of  certain  resolutions  proposing  an  alteration 
in  the  tariff  laws.  Votes  against  postponing  the  further  consideration  of 
these  resolutions.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1547,  1548.) 

Participates  in  the  discussion  on  a  bill  to  compensate  officers  and 
volunteers  in  the  Seminole  campaign  for  horses  lost  in  that  service.  (Id. 
1 549-) 

April  15. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  and  ordering  for  a  third  reading 
the  foregoing  bill.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1564.) 


Ann.=Annals  of  Congress. — C.=Congress. — s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 

ii 


xviii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

April  22. — Lays  before  the  House  a  resolution  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  Pennsylvania,  requesting  that  the  fines  imposed  on  the  militia  of  that 
State  for  non-compliance  with  certain  requisitions  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States  in  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain  be  transferred  to  that 
State,  with  power  to  collect  them.  The  resolution  was  referred  to  the 
select  committee  appointed  by  the  House  on  the  subject.  (Ann.  17  C.  1  s. 
1821-1822,  II.  1627.) 

April  23. — Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  repeal  the  act  to 
encourage  vaccination.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1640.) 

April  24. — Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  amendment  to  the  bill 
concerning  the  compensation  of  members  of  Congress,  so  as  to  reduce  the 
allowance  for  mileage  to  six  dollars  for  every  thirty  miles  travelled.  (Ann. 
17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1652.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  recommit  the  Compensation  Bill  with  certain 
instructions.     (Id.  1653.) 

Votes  for  an  amendment  to  provide  that  the  reduction  of  mileage  allow- 
ance, in  the  Compensation  Bill,  should  take  effect  the  first  day  of  the  past 
July.     The  amendment  was  lost.     (Id.  1653.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Compensation  Bill,  to  postpone  its 
operation  till  the  following  July.     The  amendment  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  1654.) 

*  April  25. — Remarks  on  a  proposed  appropriation  for  marking  the 
western  boundary  of  the  United  States  under  the  treaty  with  Spain  of 
February  22,  1819.     (Ann.   17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1663.) 

Report  from  the  select  committee,  of  which  Buchanan  was  a  member,  on 
the  subject  of  fines  imposed  by  courts-martial  on  Pennsylvania  militiamen. 
(House  Report  97,  17  C.  1  s.) 

April  26. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill,  to 
provide  for  the  cession  to  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  Pennsylvania,  respectively, 
of  the  road  from  Cumberland  to  Wheeling;  the  amendment  was  lost.  Votes 
in  favor  of  the  amendment  appropriating  $9,000  for  the  repair  of  the  road; 
the  amendment  was  adopted.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  and  reading  the 
bill  a  third  time;  it  was  so  ordered.  (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1691, 
1692.) 

Opposes  an  amendment  to  the  Military  Appropriation  Bill  for  1822,  pro- 
viding that  the  payment  of  the  expense  incurred  by  the  military  courts- 
martial  in  Pennsylvania  be  made  out  of  the  moneys  collected  from  military 
fines  in  that  State.     (Id.  1693.) 

April  27. — Votes  against  the  motion  to  postpone  the  consideration  of 
the  bill  as  to  compensation  of  members  of  Congress.  Votes  against  an  amend- 
ment to  the  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  with  instructions  to  strike  out  four 
dollars  and  insert  six  in  the  allowance  to  members  for  their  attendance  and 
for  their  necessary  travel  of  every  twenty  miles  to  and  from  Washington. 
The  amendment  was  lost.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1720,  1722.) 

April  29. — Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  preservation  and 
repair  of  the  Cumberland  Road.     (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II.  1734.) 

April  30. — Casts  various  votes  on  amendments  to  the  bill  providing  for 
the  compensation  of  members  of  Congress.  (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821-1822,  II. 
1758,  1760,  1 761,  1762,  1776.) 

May  2. — Votes  on  a  question  relating  to  the  payment  of  the  expenses 
incurred  by  courts-martial  in  the  State  of  New  York.  (Ann.  17  C.  1  s.  1821- 
1822,  II.  1780.) 

December  16. — Appears  as  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
from  Pennsylvania.     (Ann.  17  C.  2  s.  1 822-1823,  384.) 


Ann.=Annals  of  Congress.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=  Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    HOUSE,  1823  xix 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES    (Continued),   1823. 

January  8,  1823. — Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill 
to  incorporate  the  Naval  Fraternal  Association.  The  bill  was  rejected. 
(Ann.  17  C.  2  s.  1823-1824,  542.) 

January  9. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  and  reading  a  third  time  the 
bill  to  appropriate"  land  to  defray  the  cost  of  laying  out  and  making  a  road 
from  a  point  on  Lake  Erie  to  the  Connecticut  Reserve.  (Ann.  17  C.  2  s. 
1823-1824,  553.) 

January  14. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  bill  to  pro- 
vide for  procuring  the  necessary  surveys  and  estimates  for  certain  roads  and 
canals.     (Ann.  17  C.  2  s.  1823-1824,  625.) 

January  16. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  and  reading  for  a  third  time 
the  bill  for  the  better  organization  of  the  United  States  District  Court  in 
Louisiana.     (Ann.  17  C.  2  s.  1823-1824,  635.) 

January  23. — Proposes  some  additional  sections  to  the  bill  providing  for 
the  preservation  and  repair  of  the  Cumberland  Road,  and  moves  that  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  rise.     (Ann.  17  C.  2  s.  1823-1824,  669.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  the  bill  regulating  the  duties  on  imports  and 
tonnage  in  United  States  ports.     (Id.  670.) 

January  25. — Speaks  and  votes  against  a  motion  to  amend  the  bill  for  the 
better  organization  of  the  United  States  District  Court  in  Louisiana,  by 
striking  out  an  additional  compensation  of  $500  for  the  district  judge.  The 
amendment  was  adopted.     (Ann.  17  C.  2  s.  1822-1823,  690,  691.) 

January  27. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  take  up  for  consideration  a  bill 
to  provide  for  the  occupation  of  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  River.  (Ann. 
17  C.  2  s.  1822-1823,  700.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  taking  up  for  consideration  the  bill  providing  for 
surveys  and  estimates  for  certain  roads  and  canals.     (Id.  700.) 

January  29. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  resume  the  consideration  of  the 
bill  providing  for  surveys  and  estimates  for  certain  roads  and  canals.  (Ann. 
17  C.  2  s.  1822-1823,  725.) 

*  February  7. — Speech  on  the  new  Tariff  Bill.  (Ann.  17  C.  2  s.  1822- 
1823,  893-905-) 

*  February  10. — Introduces  a  resolution,  and  makes  remarks  thereon, 
instructing  the  Judiciary  Committee  to  make  inquiry  regarding  the  punish- 
ment of  crimes  on  the  high  seas.     (Ann.  17  C.  2  s.   1822-1823,  929.) 

February  13. — Discusses  an  amendment  to  the  General  Appropriation 
Bill  for  1823,  making  provision  for  the  repair  and  preservation  of  the 
Cumberland  Road,  and  moves  and  speaks  upon  an  amendment  to  provide  for 
the  recession  to  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia  of  those  parts  of 
the  road  lying  within  their  respective  jurisdictions.  (Ann.  17  C.  2  s.  1822- 
1823,  1014.) 

February  14. — Speaks  and  votes  aye  on  a  motion  to  discharge  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  from  further  consideration  of  the  new  Tariff  Bill. 
(Ann.  17  C.  2  s.  1822-1823,  1016.) 

February  19. — Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  extend  the  charter 
of  the  Mechanics'  Bank  of  Alexandria.     (Ann.  17  C.  2  s.   1822-1823,  1062.) 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole,  speaks  in  favor  of  his  amendment  to  the 
Cumberland  Road  Bill,  to  provide  for  the  recession  to  Maryland,  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  Virginia  of  certain  parts  of  the  Cumberland  Road.  The  amend- 
ment was  negatived.     (Id.  1063.) 

In  the  House,  again  submits  the  amendment.     (Id.   1063-1064.) 

February   21. — Votes    in    favor    of    his    amendment    to    the    Cumberland 


Ann.=Annals  of  Congress. — C.=Congress. — s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


xx  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Road  Bill.  The  amendment  was  negatived.  (Ann.  17  C.  2  s.  1822-1823, 
1072.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  ordering  the  bill  to  a  third  reading.     (Id.  1074.) 

February  24. — Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  to  be  engrossed  and  read  a 
third  time  the  bill  abolishing  the  office  of  measurer  in  the  several  ports  of 
entry  in  the  United  States.     (Ann.  17  C.  2  s.  1822-1823,  1093.) 

February  26. — Opposes  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Benjamin  King.  (Ann. 
17  C.  2  s.  1822-1823,  1 1 18.) 

February  27. — Votes  against  concurrence  in  the  Senate  amendment  to 
the  Revolutionary  Pensions  Bill,  providing  for  a  reduction  of  pensions.  The 
amendment  was  not  accepted.     (Ann.  17  C  2  s.  1822-1823,  1142.) 

February  28. — Votes  for  a  resolution  requesting  the  President  to  negotiate 
with  the  maritime  powers  for  the  abolition  of  the  African  slave  trade. 
(Ann.  17  C.  2  s.  1822-1823,  H55-) 

December  1. — Appears  as  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
from  Pennsylvania,  and  takes  his  seat.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  I.  793.) 

December  2. — Appointed  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary. 
(Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  I.  798.) 

December  5. — Appointed  a  member  of  a  select  committee  of  seven  for  the 
purpose  of  inquiring  into  the  expediency  of  recommending  to  the  several 
States  the  propriety  of  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  making  the  mode  of  electing  members  of  the  House  and  electors 
uniform  throughout  the  United  States.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  I.  801.) 

December  30. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  certain  distillers  of 
Berks  County,  Pennsylvania.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  I.  910.) 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES    (Continued),   1824. 

*  January  5,  1824. — Remarks  on  a  bill  concerning  costs  in  patent  cases. 
(Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1 823-1 824,  I.  933~934>  936~937-) 

January  6. — Reports  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  a  bill  to  alter 
the  judicial  districts  of  Pennsylvania.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  I.  939.) 

January  7. — Votes  in  favor  of  agreeing  to  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Elections,  admitting  Parmenio  Adams  to  a  seat.  The  report  was  agreed 
to.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  I.  944.) 

January  13. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill 
for  obtaining  the  necessary  surveys,  plans,  and  estimates  on  the  subject  of 
roads  and  canals.     It  was  so  ordered.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  I.  1041.) 

*  January  15. — Introduces  and  speaks  upon  a  resolution  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  committee  to  inquire  in  what  manner  the  resolutions  of  Congress 
for  the  erection  of  a  monument  to  Washington  may  be  best  accomplished. 
(Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  I.  1044-1046,  1047-1048.) 

*  February  16. — Remarks  on  the  Tariff  Bill,  with  reference  to  the  proposed 
duty  of  six  cents  a  yard  on  imported  bagging.  (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824, 
I.  1546,  1547.) 

*  February  17. — Remarks  on  the  Tariff  Bill,  with  reference  to  the 
proposed  duty  of  six  cents  a  yard  on  imported  bagging,  and  moves  an 
amendment  by  striking  out  six  and  inserting  two  and  a  half.  (Ann.  18  C. 
1  s.  1823-1824,  I.  1565,  1566.) 

*  February  19. — Remarks  on  the  Tariff  Bill,  with  reference  to  the  pro- 
posed duty  of  six  cents  a  yard  on  imported  bagging  and  the  resolution 
offered  to  inquire  what  effect  the  passage  of  the  bill  would  have  upon  the 
revenue.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  I.  1590.) 

February  20. — Votes  on  certain  amendments  to  the  Military  Appropria- 


Ann.=Annals  of  Congress.— C.=Congress. — s.=session.—*=  Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    HOUSE,  1824  xxi 

tion  Bill,  as  to  the  purchase  of  Gridley's  farm,  in  the  State  of  New  York. 
(Ann.  18  C.  I  s.  1823-1824,  I.  161 7,  1618.) 

February  23,  24. — Votes  for  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  resolution 
for  an  inquiry  into  the  effect  of  the  passage  of  the  proposed  Tariff  Bill. 
(Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  I.  1623,  1629.) 

*  February  26. — Renews  motion  to  amend  the  Tariff  Bill  so  as  to 
change  the  duty  on  cotton  bagging  from  six  cents  to  two  and  a  half  cents 
per  square  yard.  The  amendment  was  agreed  to.  (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823- 
1824,  I.  1678-1679.) 

February  27. — Votes  against  taking  up  for  consideration  the  resolution 
to  inquire  into  the  effect  of  the  passage  of  the  proposed  Tariff  Bill.  (Ann. 
18  C  1  s.  1823-1824,  I.  1681.) 

Remarks  on  the  Tariff  Bill,  with  reference  to  a  motion  to  strike  out  the 
provision  for  a  duty  of  twenty-five  cents  per  bushel  on  wheat.     (Id.  1696.) 

*  February  28. — Speech  on  the  Tariff  Bill,  with  reference  to  the  duty  on 
bar  iron.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.   1823-1824,  II.  1709-1712.) 

*  March  4. — Remarks  on  the  Tariff  Bill,  with  reference  to  the  duty  on 
woollen  goods.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  I742-) 

March  II. — Advocates  a  motion  to  strike  out  of  the  General  Appropriation 
Bill  for  1824  the  word  "Lima,"  in  the  list  of  ministers  to  South  America. 
(Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  1766.) 

March  13. — Votes  against  concurring  in  a  provision  in  the  General 
Appropriation  Bill  for  1824,  of  $25,000  for  the  north  portico  of  the  President's 
house.     (Ann.   18  C.   1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  1782.) 

March  18. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Elections 
against  the  right  of  John  Bailey  to  a  seat.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II. 

1855.) 

*  March  23. — Remarks  on  a  motion  amending  the  Tariff  Bill  so  as  to 
reduce  the  proposed  duty  on  hemp  from  two  cents  a  pound  to  one  and  one- 
half  cents.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  1888-1893.) 

*  March  25. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  amend  the  Tariff  Bill  so  as  to 
extend  the  drawback  system.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  1910,  191 1.) 

April  8. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  taken  on  the 
report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  amendment  to  the  Tariff 
Bill  reducing  the  minimum  on  woollen  goods  from  eighty  to  forty  cents  a 
square  yard;  and  votes  in  favor  of  this  amendment.  (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823- 
1824,  II.  2255,  2257.) 

*April  9. — Speech  on  the  Tariff  Bill,  opposing  reduction  of  duty  on  bar 
iron.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2258-2271.) 

April  10. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Tariff  Bill.  (Ann.  18  C. 
1    s.    1823-1824,   II.   2289,   2290,   2291,   2293.) 

April  12. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Tariff  Bill.  (Ann.  18  C. 
1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2310,  231 1.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Tariff  Bill.  (Id.  2312,  2313,  2314, 
2316.) 

April  13. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Tariff  Bill.  (Ann.  18  C. 
1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2328,  2329,  2332.) 

April  14. — Votes  against  postponing  the  consideration  of  the  Tariff  Bill. 
(Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2337.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  putting  the  main  question  of  the  Tariff  Bill.    (Id.  2341.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  main  question  for  engrossing  and  reading  a  third 
time  the  Tariff  Bill.     (Id.  2342.) 

Votes  against  fixing  July  4th  as  the  day  for  reading  a  third  time  the 
Tariff  Bill.     (Id.   2344.) 


Ann.=Annals  of  Congress.— C.=Congress.—s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


xxii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

April  16.— Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  the  Tariff  Bill  on  the  table. 
(Ann.  18  C.  i  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2428.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  putting  the  main  question  of  the  passage  of  the 
Tariff  Bill.     (Id.  2428.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  Tariff  Bill.     (Id.  2429.) 

April  19. — Inquires  as  to  the  object  of  Ninian  Edwards  in  memorializing 
the  House  with  reference  to  alleged  injustice  done  to  him  in  a  report  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2450.) 

April  21. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  recommit  the  Fortifications 
Bill.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2469.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  referring  the  joint  resolution  of  the  Senate  fixing  the 
time  for  adjournment  to  the  proper  committee.     (Id.  2470.) 

April  23. — Moves  that  the  House  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  bill  "  to  alter  the  judicial  districts  of  Pennsylvania."  (Ann.  18  C.  1  s. 
1 823-1824,  II.  2481.) 

Discusses  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Penelope  Denney.  Moves  to  strike  out 
the  enacting  clause,  but  the  motion  is  defeated.  Votes  against  ordering  the 
bill  to  a  third  reading.     (Id.  2485,  2486.) 

April  28. — Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  to  a  third  reading  the  bill  for  the 
relief  of  Daniel  Carroll,  and  others.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2501.) 

April  30. — Asks  concerning  a  resolution  instructing  the  Committee  on 
the  Judiciary  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  certain  legislation  affecting 
the  District  of  Columbia.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2506.) 

May  5. — Votes  against  a  bill  for  the  remission  of  duties  on  goods  im- 
ported into  Castine,  Maine,  while  it  was  in  possession  of  the  British  during 
the  War  of  1812.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2549.) 

May  6. — Advocates  the  bill  authorizing  the  creation  of  stock  for  the 
awards  of  the  Commissioners  under  the  treaty  with  Spain  of  February  22, 
1819.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2554.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  consideration  of  the  bill.     (Id.  2555.) 

May  7. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  authorizing  the  creation 
of  five  million  dollars  stock  for  the  awards  of  the  Commissioners  under  the 
treaty  with  Spain  of  February  22,  1819.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2574.) 

*  May  7,  8. — Remarks  on  the  bill  making  appropriation  for  removing 
obstructions  from  the  bed  of  the  Mississippi,  Ohio,  and  Missouri  rivers. 
(Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2578,  2583,  2584.) 

*  May  10. — Offers  and  speaks  upon  an  amendment  to  the  above  bill. 
(Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2586-2587,  2588.) 

*  May  11. — Requests  leave  to  record  his  vote  against  the  bill,  which  had 
been  passed,  for  improving  the  navigation  of  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  rivers. 
Request  denied.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2597.) 

*  May  13. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  as  to  the  sale  of  public  lots  in  the 
city  of  Washington.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2614.) 

May  14. — Votes  for  the  motion  that  the  House  go  into  Committee  of  the 
Whole  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  Tariff  Bill  as  reported  from  the 
Senate.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2621.) 

May  !£. — Votes  against  various  Senate  amendments  to  the  Tariff  Bill. 
(Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2626,  2627,  2628,  2629.) 

May  1  j. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  recede  from  the  disagreement  to  the 
Senate  amendments  to  the  Tariff  Bill.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2634.) 

*  May  18. — Remarks  on  a  joint  resolution  fixing  the  day  of  adjournment 
of  Congress.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2651-2652.) 

May  19. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  consideration 
of  the  Tariff  Bill.     (Ann.  18  C.  1  s.  1823-1824,  II.  2673.) 


Ann. 


Annals  of  Congress.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    HOUSE,  1825  xxiii 

Votes  in  favor  of  concurring  in  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Confer- 
ence in  relation  to  amendments  to  the  Tariff  Bill.     (Id.  2674.) 

*  December  21. — Submits  and  speaks  upon  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  4th 
section  of  the  bill  for  occupying  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia  River.  (Reg. 
18  C.  2  s.  1824-1825,  I.  36.) 

December  23. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  bill  concerning  General  Lafayette. 
(Reg.  18  C.  2  s.  1824-1825,  I.  550 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES    (Continued),   1825. 

*  January  3,  1825. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  Niagara 
sufferers.     (Reg.  18  C  2  s.  1824-1825,  I.  121-123.) 

January  6. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the 
Niagara  sufferers.     (Reg.  18  C.  2  s.  1824-1825,  I.  145.) 

*  January  7. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  punishing  certain  crimes  against  the 
United  States;  and  also  moves  to  amend  the  bill  so  as  to  provide  a  lesser 
penalty  for  the  crime  of  stealing  by  a  passenger  aboard  a  vessel.  The 
amendment  was  agreed  to.     (Reg.  18  C.  2  s.  1824-1825,  I.  157-158.) 

*  January  11. — Remarks  on  the  request  in  the  President's  message  for  an 
examination  of  his  accounts.     (Reg.  18  C.  2  s.  1824-1825,  I.  176-177.) 

*  January  13. — Remarks  on  the  bill  providing  for  a  Western  National 
Road.     (Reg.  18  C.  2  s.  1824-1825,  I.  206-207.) 

January  18. — Votes  against  ordering  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading 
the  bill  providing  for  the  Western  National  Road.  (Reg.  18  C.  2  s.  1824-1825, 
I.  261.) 

January  19. — Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the 
Niagara  sufferers.     (Reg.   18  C.  2  s.   1824-1825,  I.  274.) 

*  January  21. — Remarks  on  the  bill  authorizing  a  subscription  to  the 
stock  of  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal.  (Reg.  18  C.  2  s.  1824-1825,  I. 
331-332.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  this  bill.     (Id.  333.) 

*  February  2. — Remarks  on  the  report  of  the  Select  Committee  on  rules 
to  be  observed  by  the  House  in  choosing  a  President.  (Reg.  18  C.  2  s.  1824- 
1825,  I.  422-423.) 

February  4. — The  Speaker  of  the  House  (Mr.  Clay)  having  appealed  for 
an  investigation  into  the  charge  of  a  corrupt  bargain  between  Adams  and 
himself,  Buchanan  moves  an  adjournment.  Motion  negatived.  (Reg.  18  C. 
2  s.  1824-1825,  I.  482.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the  consideration  of 
the  subject  of  the  Speaker's  appeal  to  the  House,  and  against  referring  the 
matter  to  a  select  committee.     (Id.  484,  486.) 

*  February  21. — Remarks  on  a  bill  concerning  the  extension  of  drawback 
duties.     (Reg.  18  C.  2  s.  1824-1825,  I.  636.) 

February  23. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill 
providing  for  the  payment  to  Virginia  of  interest  on  militia  claims.  (Reg. 
18   C.    2    s.    1824-1825,    I.    667.) 

February  25. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  bill  to  confirm  the  acts  of  the  legisla- 
tures of  Maryland  and  Virginia  incorporating  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio 
Canal  Company.     (Reg.  18  C.  2  s.  1824-1825,  I.  687.) 

*  March  1. — Moves  to  amend  the  Senate  bill  for  the  suppression  of 
piracy,  by  reducing  the  number  of  sloops  of  war  and  the  sum  appropriated, 
and  makes  remarks  on  his  amendment.  The  amendment  was  agreed  to. 
(Reg.  18  C.  2  s.  1824-1825,  I.  729,  730,  731,  732.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


xxiv  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

March  2. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  secure  the  accountability  of  public 
officers,  moving  to  postpone  it  indefinitely.  The  bill  was  recommitted  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole.     (Reg.  18  C.  2  s.  1824-1825,  I.  737.) 

*  December  15. — Offers  a  resolution  calling  for  the  proceedings  of  the 
court-martial  in  the  case  of  Commodore  Porter,  and  makes  remarks  thereon. 
(Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  1,  806-808.) 

*  December  16. — Remarks  on  his  resolution  calling  for  the  proceedings 
of  the  court-martial  in  the  case  of  Commodore  Porter.  The  resolution  was 
passed.     (Reg.  19  C.  1   s.   1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  1,  815-817.) 

*  December  27. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  calling  for  a  statement  of  losses 
in  the  collection  of  customs.     (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  1,  860.) 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES    (Continued),   1826. 

January  4,  1826. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  calling  on  the  President 
for  a  list  of  appointments  to  office  of  members  of  Congress.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s. 
1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  1,  871.) 

*  January  5. — Remarks  on  a  bill  concerning  the  Judiciary.  (Reg.  19  C. 
1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  1,  887-888.) 

*  January  9. — Speech  on  the  same  bill.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II., 
pt.  1,  916-925.) 

*  January  10. — Continues  speech  on  the  bill  concerning  the  Judiciary. 
(Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt  1,  927-929,  930-932.) 

January  19. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Judiciary  System  Bill, 
decreasing  the  number  of  associate  judges.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II., 
pt.  1,  1054.) 

January  25. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the 
Judiciary  System  Bill.     (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  II.,  pt.  1,  1149.) 

*  January  27. — Remarks  on  the  bill  making  appropriations  for  fortifica- 
tions.    (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  1,  1184-1186.) 

*  January  30. — Remarks  on  the  same  bill.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826, 
II,  pt.  1,  1204.) 

January  31. — Asks  for  the  withdrawal  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table 
the  resolution  concerning  the  Congress  of  Panama.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825- 
1826,  II.,  pt.  1,  1219.) 

February  13. — Votes  against  the  passage  of  a  bill  for  the  relief  of 
Penelope  Denney.     (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  1,  1346.) 

February  17. — Offers  and  speaks  upon  a  resolution  to  amend  the  Consti- 
tution regarding  the  election  of  President.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II., 
pt.  I,  1417-1418.) 

*  February  20. — Remarks  on  a  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
in  relation  to  the  election  of  President  and  Vice-President.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s. 
1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  1,  1417;  House  Report  19,  19  C.  1  s.) 

*  March  11. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  subscription  to  stock  of  the  Dismal 
Swamp  Canal  Company.     (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt  1,  1618-1620.) 

*  March  25. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  of  inquiry  regarding  the  statement 
by  the  American  minister  to  Mexico  concerning  a  pledge  of  the  United  States 
to  prevent  foreign  interference  other  than  Spanish  in  South  America.  (Reg. 
19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt  2,  1767-1768.) 

Presides  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  during  the  consideration  of  a  bill 
concerning  Massachusetts  militia  claims.     (Id.  1768.) 

*  March  27. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  regarding  the  statement  of  the 
American  minister  to  the  Mexican  Government.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826, 
II.,  pt.  2,  1808-1810.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— C.=Congress. — s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    HOUSE,  1826  xxv 

March  31. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of 
discontinuing  the  Navy-yard  at  Philadelphia.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II. 
pt.  2,  I930-I93I-) 

April  1. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  to  amend  the  Constitution  so  as 
to  prevent  the  election  of  President  and  Vice-President  from  devolving  on 
Congress.     (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  2,  2004.) 

Votes  against  a  resolution  concerning  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
for  a  uniform  system  of  voting  by  districts.     (Id.  2005.) 

April  3. — Moves  that  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution,  submitted  by 
him,  should  be  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  twenty-four.  (Reg.  19  C. 
1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  2,  2007.) 

*  April  4. — Offers  and  speaks  upon  a  resolution  concerning  the  mission 
to  Panama.     (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  2,  2029.) 

April  7. — Presides  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  during  consideration  of 
the  subject  of  the  Massachusetts  militia  claims.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  182 5-1826, 
II.,  pt.  2,  2099.) 

April  10. — Moves  that  Committee  of  the  Whole  rise  and  House  adjourn. 
(Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  2,  2166.) 

*  April  11. — Speech  on  the  mission  to  Panama.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825- 
1826,  II.,  pt.  2,  2168-2 182.) 

*  April  18. — Remarks  on  the  mission  to  Panama.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825- 
1826,  II.,  pt.  2,  2368-2369,  2370,  2374,  2376.) 

April  20. — Further  remarks  on  the  mission.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826, 
II.,  pt.  2,  2412-2413.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  resolution  concerning  the  mission 
to  Panama.     (Id.  2457.) 

April  21. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  amended  resolution  concerning  the 
mission.     (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  2,  2490.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  the  General  Appropriation  Bill,  with  refer- 
ence to  a  communication  from  the  Department  of  State  on  the  subject  of 
salary  and  outfit.     (Id.  2491.) 

April  22. — Votes  for  the  bill  making  an  appropriation  for  carrying  into 
effect  the  appointment  of  a  mission  to  Panama.  (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826, 
II.,  pt.  2,  2514.) 

*  April  24. — Speech  on  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Revolutionary  officers. 
(Reg.  19  C.   1  s.   1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  2,  2540-2543.) 

April  25. — Moves  to  discharge  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  from  further 
consideration  of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Revolutionary  officers.  (Reg.  19  C. 
1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  2,  2573.) 

May  2. — Votes  against  recommitment  of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Revolu- 
tionary officers.     (Reg.  19  C.  1  s.  1825-1826,  II.,  pt.  2,  2592.) 

*  December  11. — Remarks  on  a  bill  granting  public  lands  to  the  New 
York  and  Pennsylvania  institutions  for  the  instruction  of  the  deaf  and  dumb. 
(Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  527.) 

December  14. — Moves  to  table  for  one  day  a  resolution  to  discharge 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  from  further  consideration  of  the  Massachusetts 
Militia  Claims  Bill.     (Reg.  19  C  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  531.) 

*  Offers  a  resolution  calling  for  information  on  the  Panama  Congress. 
(Niles'  Weekly  Register,  Dec.  23,  1826,  XXXI.  263.) 

December  15. — Moves  the  consideration  of  the  resolution  to  discharge 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  from  further  consideration  of  the  Massachusetts 
Militia  Claims  Bill.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  531.) 

December  19. — Moves  to  postpone  further  consideration  of  a  bill  allowing 
the  importation  of  brandy  in  casks  of  not  less  than  fifteen  gallons.  (Reg.  19 
C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  543.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— C.=  Congress.— s.=session.—*= Printed  herein. 


xxvi  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES    (Continued),   1827. 

*  January  3,  1827.— Remarks  on  the  bill  regarding  the  importation  of 
brandy.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  588-591,  596-597.) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  600.) 

*  January  9. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  concerning  appointments  of 
charges  des  affaires.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  639-640.) 

*  January  12. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Revolutionary 
officers.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  683-685.) 

Votes  against  a  resolution  to  recommit  the  bill  with  instructions  to 
include  certain  militia  officers.     (Id.  690.) 

January  15. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  same  bill.  (Reg.  19  C. 
2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  729.) 

January  16. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Revolutionary  officers.  (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827, 
III.  730.) 

January  17. — Presides  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  during  the  considera- 
tion of  a  bill  concerning  duties  on  wool  and  woollens.  (Reg.  19  C.  2  s. 
1826-1827,  III.  732.) 

*  January  18. — Remarks  on  the  bill  concerning  duties  on  wool  and 
woollens.  Moves  to  discharge  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  from  further 
consideration  of  the  bill.      (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  747-748,  749.) 

January  19. — Remarks  on  the  resignation  of  L.  McLane  from  the 
chairmanship  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means.  (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826- 
1827,  III.  75I-) 

Votes  in  favor  of  reading  a  third  time  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  sufferers 
by  fire  at  Alexandria,  D.  C.     (Id.  773.) 

*  January  22. — Remarks  on  his  motion  to  discharge  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  from  further  consideration  of  the  bill  concerning  duties  on  wool 
and  woollens.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  779-780.) 

January  25. — Presides  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  during  the  considera- 
tion of  this  bill.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  820.) 

January  30. — Presides  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  during  the 
consideration  of  the  same  bill.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  857.) 

*  January  31. — Remarks  on  a  proposed  resolution  of  inquiry  as  to  a 
possible  residuum  of  the  indemnity  for  slaves  unlawfully  carried  away.  (Reg. 
19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  879-880.) 

*  February  6. — Remarks  on  the  reference  of  memorials  in  behalf  of  a 
polar  expedition.     (Reg.   19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  949.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  resolution  inquiring  as  to 
the  publishers  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States  in  the  several  States.  (Id. 
957-) 

Votes  against  putting  the  question  whether  the  bill  concerning  wool  and 
woollens  shall  be  ordered  to  a  third  reading.     (Id.  986.) 

*  February  7. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  concerning 
duties  on  wool  and  woollens,  and  votes  in  favor  of  recommitment.  (Reg. 
19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  995.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill.     (Id.  997-1000.) 

February  8. — Votes  against  sustaining  the  Chair  on  a  ruling  that  pending 
the  previous  question  a  motion  for  a  call  of  the  House  is  not  in  order.  (Reg. 
19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  1026.) 

Votes  against  putting  the  main  question  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading 
the  bill  concerning  duties  on  wool  and  woollens.     (Id.  1027.) 


Reg.= Register  of  Debates.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    HOUSE,  1827  xxvii 

Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  1028.) 

*  February  9. — Remarks  on  the  President's  message  concerning  the  United 
States  and  Georgia.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  1032-1034.) 

*  February  10. — Moves  to  recommit  the  bill  concerning  duties  on  wool 
and  woollens  with  instructions.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  1066-1067.) 

Remarks  on  his  motion.     (Id.  1078-1070,  1080.) 

Votes  against  laying  the  bill  on  the  table.     (Id.  1087.) 
-    Votes   against  putting   the  main   question   of   the   passage   of   the   bill. 
(Id.  1098.) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  1099.) 

February  12. — Presides  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  during  the  consider- 
ation of  a  bill  providing  for  the  exchange  of  certain  United  States  stock  for 
other  stock.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  11 19.) 

*  February  15. — Remarks  on  an  appropriation  for  an  outfit  for  the 
minister  at  the  Congress  of  Tacubaya.  (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  1188- 
1189.) 

Votes  against  appropriating  $9,000  for  the  outfit.     (Id.  1214.) 

*  February  16. — Remarks  on  the  Military  Appropriations  Bill,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  appropriation  for  the  continuation  of  the  Cumberland  Road. 
(Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  1220.) 

February  19. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  provision  in  the  Military  Appropria- 
tions Bill  for  the  Georgia  militia  claims.  (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III. 
1265.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  appropriation  in  the  Military  Appropriations  Bill 
for  the  continuation  of  the  Cumberland  Road.     (Id.  1265.) 

*  February  20. — Remarks  on  the  Military  Appropriations  Bill,  with  refer- 
ence to  an  appropriation  for  surveying  routes  for  roads  and  canals.  (Reg. 
19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  1283-1285.) 

February  21. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  appropriation  for  surveys.  (Reg.  19 
C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  1332.) 

*  February  23. — Remarks  on  a  bill  making  appropriations  for  the  repair 
of  public  buildings.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  1376.) 

*  February  24. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  preservation  and  repair  of  the 
Cumberland  Road.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  1397,  1398,  1399-1400.) 

Moves  to  amend  the  bill,  and  makes  remarks  thereon.  The  amendment 
is  agreed  to.     (Id.  1403,  1404.) 

February  26. — Votes  for  the  bill  for  the  preservation  and  repair  of  the 
Cumberland  Road.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  1418.) 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the  purpose 
of  considering  a  bill  regulating  commercial  intercourse  between  the  United 
States  and  the  British  colonies.     (Id.  1419-) 

February  28. — Speaks  on  the  bill  regulating  commercial  intercourse  with 
the  British  colonies,  with  reference  to  exempting  the  lakes  and  inland  waters 
of  the  United  States.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827,  III.  1481.) 

March  1. — Remarks  on  the  Navy  Bill,  with  reference  to  a  motion  to 
strike  out  the  provision  for  a  Naval  Academy.     (Reg.  19  C.  2  s.  1826-1827, 

HI-  1497.) 

March  2. — Votes  against  adhering  to  a  House  amendment  to  the  bill 
regulating  commercial  intercourse  with  the  British  colonies.  (Reg.  19  C.  2  s. 
1826-1827,  III.  1531.) 

December  20. — Moves  an  adjournment.  (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV., 
pt.  1,  842.) 

December  21. — Votes  against  a  resolution  instructing  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means  to  report  the  bill  for  the  sale  of  stock  held  by  the  United 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


xxviii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

States  in  the  Bank  of  the  United  States.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV., 
pt.  1.  858.) 

*  December  31. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  empowering  the  Committee  on 
Manufactures  to  ascertain  and  report  facts  relating  to  tariff  revision.  (Reg. 
20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  1,  875-876,  877.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolution  as  amended.      (Id.  889.) 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES    (Continued),   1828. 

January  5,  1828. — Votes  for  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  expediency 
of  having  a  picture  painted  of  the  battle  of  New  Orleans.  (Reg.  20  C.  1  s. 
1827-1828,   IV.,  pt.    1,   952.) 

*  January  14. — Offers  and  speaks  upon  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the 
preservation  and  repair  of  the  Cumberland  Road,  providing  for  the  retro- 
cession of  the  road  to  the  States  through  which  it  passes.  (Reg.  20  C.  1  s. 
1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  1,  1004-1005.) 

*  January  16. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  as  to  the  court-martial  held  at 
Mobile,  December  5,  1814,  for  the  trial  of  certain  Tennessee  militiamen. 
Moves  an  amendment  to  the  resolution  calling  for  a  copy  of  the  order  issued 
by  Governor  Blount  to  General  Jackson.  (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV., 
pt.  1,  1031-1032.) 

*  January  23. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  favoring  retrenchment.  (Reg. 
20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  1,  1088-1090.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Marigny 
d'Auterive.     (Id.  1122.) 

*  January  24. — Remarks  on  resolutions  favoring  retrenchment.  (Reg. 
20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  1,  1136-1138.) 

*  January  26. — Remarks  on  resolutions  favoring  retrenchment.  (Reg.  20 
C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  1,  1189-1191.) 

*  February  4. — Speech  on  resolutions  favoring  retrenchment.  (Reg.  20 
C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  1,  1360-1377.) 

February  6. — Remarks  on  resolutions  favoring  retrenchment.  (Reg.  20 
C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  1,  1447.) 

*  February  11. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  print  the  documents  relating  to 
the  court-martial  at  Mobile.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827- 1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  1497.) 

*  February  14. — Remarks  on  a  bill  relating  to  internal  improvements. 
(Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  1513-1514.) 

*  March  1. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  concerning  the  use  of  the  hall  of 
the  House  of  Representatives.  (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  1702- 
1703.) 

*  March  24. — Remarks  on  a  bill  relating  to  the  claim  of  R.  W.  Meade. 
(Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  1 967-1968.) 

*  March  27. — Moves  to  amend  the  Tariff  Bill  with  reference  to  duties  on 
woollens.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2038-2039.) 

*  March  28. — Remarks  on  the  Tariff  Bill  with  reference  to  his  amend- 
ment.    (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2039-2045,  2050.) 

*  March  31. — Remarks  on  a  bill  relating  to  the  sale  of  certain  public 
lands.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2052,  2053.) 

*  April  1,  2.— Speech  on  the  Tariff  Bill.  (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV., 
pt.  2,  2079,  2089-21 10.) 

April  2. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  the 
widow  of  General  Brown.     (Id.  2089.) 

April  4. — Proposes  an  amendment  to  the  Tariff  Bill,  which  amendment 
is  rejected.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2188.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— C.^Congress.— s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    HOUSE,  1828  xxix 

*  April  8.— Moves  amendments  to  the  Tariff  Bill,  relating  to  distilled 
spirits,  and  makes  remarks  thereon.  (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2, 
2219,  2221.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Tariff  Bill.     (Id.  2245.) 

*  April  9. — Moves  an  amendment  to  the  Tariff  Bill,  relating  to  duties  on 
woollens,  and  makes  remarks  thereon.  (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2, 
2252-2253.) 

April  10. — Participates  in  a  discussion  on  an  amendment  to  the  Tariff 

Bill.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2288.) 

Makes  remarks  as  to  the  order  of  proceedings.     (Id.  2289.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Tariff  Bill.     (Id.  2289.) 

Votes  against  the   decision  of  the   Chair  on   a  certain   appeal  by   Cam- 

breleng.     The  decision  of  the  Chair  negatived.     (Id.  2305.) 

Votes  against  recommitting  the  Tariff  Bill  with  instructions.     (Id.  2308.) 
April  12. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Tariff  Bill.     (Reg.  20 

C.  1  s.  1 827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2313.) 

*  April  15. — Remarks  on  the  Tariff  Bill,  with  reference  to  the  duty  on 
molasses.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2346.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  putting  the  main  question  whether  the  bill  should  be 
engrossed  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  2348.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  2348.) 

*  April  19. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  considera- 
tion of  the  Tariff  Bill.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2414.) 

April  22. — Votes  in  favor  of  putting  the  main  question  on  the  passage  of 
the  Tariff  Bill.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2470.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  2471.) 

April  24. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  directing  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs  to  report  a  bill  abolishing  the  office  of  major- 
general.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2493.) 

*  April  28. — Remarks  on  the  question  as  to  the  proper  committee  to 
which  to  refer  a  bill  to  authorize  railroad  companies  to  import  iron  and 
machinery  free  of  duty.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2505.) 

*  April  30. — Remarks  on  the  date  of  adjournment.  (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827- 
1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2541-2542.) 

*  May  1. — Remarks  on  a  bill  concerning  naturalization.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s. 

1827-1828,  iv.,  pt.  2, 2555-2556.) 

May  12. — Expresses  the  hope,  during  consideration  of  the  bill  concerning 
officers  of  the  Revolutionary  War,  that  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  will 
rise.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2660.) 

May  13. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  concerning  officers  of 
the  Revolutionary  War.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2670.) 

May  14. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  to 
enlarge  the  powers  of  the  corporations  of  Washington,  Georgetown,  and 
Alexandria.     (Reg.  20  C.  1  s.  1827-1828,  IV.,  pt.  2,  2677.) 

*  Makes  remarks  on  the  bill  abolishing  the  office  of  major-general.  (Id. 
2679-2680,  2684-2685.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  the  bill  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading. 
(Id.  2694.) 

*  December  11. — Remarks  on  extension  of  the  term  of  exportations  with 
benefit  of  drawback.     (Reg.  20  C.  2  s.  1828-1829,  V.  98-99-) 

December  16. — Votes  against  ordering  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading 
the  bill  increasing  the  amount  of  drawback  on  sugars  refined  within  the 
United  States.     (Reg.  20  C.  2  s.  1828-1829,  V.  HI.) 

*  December  23. — Remarks  on  a  bill  authorizing  the  occupation  of  the 
Oregon  River.     (Reg.  20  C.  2  s.  1828-1829,  V.  126.) 


Reg. = Register  of  Debates.— C.=Congress.— s.=session.— *=  Printed  herein. 


xxx  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES    (Continued),   1829. 

*  January  15,  1829. — Offers  an  amendment  to  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill, 
providing  for  the  retrocession  of  several  parts  of  the  road  to  the  States 
through  which  they  pass.     (Reg.  20  C.  2  s.  1828-1829,  V.  215.) 

*  January  19. — Speech  on  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill  and  on  his  amend- 
ment.    (Reg.  20  C.  2  s.  1828-1829,  V.  240-244.) 

*  January  20. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  establish  a  Territory  of  Huron. 
(Reg.  20  C.  2  s.  1828-1829,  V.  245.) 

February  4. — Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  to 
repeal  the  tonnage  duties  upon  ships  and  vessels  of  the  United  States  and 
upon  certain  foreign  vessels.     (Reg.  20  C.  2  s.  1828-1829,  V.  318.) 

*  February  6. — Remarks  on  a  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  to 
render  the  President  ineligible  for  a  second  term.  (Reg.  20  C.  2  s.  1828-1829, 
V.  320-321.) 

*  February  12. — Speech  on  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill  and  his  amend- 
ment.    Amendment  rejected.     (Reg.  20  C.  2  s.  1828-1829,  V.  351,  appended, 

i-7.) 

Offers  in  the  House  the  same  amendment  moved  by  him  in  Committee  of 
the  Whole  on  January  15th.     (Id.  351.) 

February  18. — Amendment  to  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill  rejected.     (Reg. 

20  C.  2  s.  1828-1829,  V.  361.) 

Moves  another  amendment,  for  erection  of  toll-gates  and  collection  of 

tolls.     Makes   remarks  on  this  amendment.     (Id.   361.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  361.) 
February  2.6. — Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill   to   repeal  tonnage 

duties    upon    ships    and    vessels    of    the    United    States    and    upon    certain 

foreign  vessels.     (Reg.  20  C.  2  s.  1828-1829,  V.  385.) 

*  March  2. — Offers  an  amendment  to  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill,  as 
returned  from  the  Senate,  providing  for  the  erection  of  gates  and  the  collec- 
tion of  toll.  Makes  remarks  on  this  amendment.  (Reg.  20  C.  2  s.  1828-1829, 
V.  385,  386.) 

*  December  7. — Remarks  on  the  election  of  a  clerk  of  the  House.     (Reg. 

21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  471.) 

*  December  9. — Remarks  on  the  appointment  of  standing  committees  of 
the  House.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  472.) 

*  December  15. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  for  the  printing  of  the  annual 
report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.     (Reg.  21   C.   1   s.   1829-1830,  VI., 

pt.  i,  475-) 

December  29. — Remarks  on  a  bill  to  regulate  the  pay  and  mileage  of 
members  of  Congress.     (Reg.  21  C.  1   s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  488.) 

*  December  30. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  expediency 
of  distributing  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  public  lands.  (Reg.  21  C.  1  s. 
1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  489-490.) 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES    (Continued),   1830. 

*  January  4,  1830. — Reports  on  the  claim  of  James  Linsey.  (House 
Report  48,  21  C.  1  s.) 

*  Reports  on  allowances  to  jurors.     (House  Report  49,  21  C.  1  s.) 

*  Reports  on  appeals  and  writs  of  error.     (House  Report  50,  21  C.  1  s.) 

*  Reports  on  the  case  of  Manuel  del  Barco.  (House  Report  51,  21  C. 
1  s.) 

*  January  13. — Reports  on  the  lobster  fishery.  (House  Report  79, 
21  C.  1  s.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    HOUSE,  1830  xxxi 

*  January  14. — Speech  on  a  bill  establishing  circuit  courts  and  abridging 
the  jurisdiction  of  district  courts  in  certain  districts.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829- 

1830,  vi.,  pt.  1, 530-537.) 

January  19. — Moves  that  the  House  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  for 
consideration  of  the  Judiciary  Bill.     (Reg.  21   C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1, 

540.) 

*  February  10. — Remarks  on  the  Civil  Appropriations  Bill,  with  reference 
to  diplomatic  expenses.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  558-559-) 

*  February  13. — Report  on  the  boundary  between  Georgia  and  Florida. 
(House  Report  191,  21  C.  1  s.) 

February  18. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  for  the  relief  of 
the  widows  and  orphans  of  the  men  on  the  sloop  of  war  Hornet.  (Reg. 
21  G  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  580.) 

*  February  24. — Remarks  on  a  bill  relating  to  the  Indian  question.  (Reg. 
21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  581.) 

*  February  26. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  of  inquiry  looking  to  the 
diminution  of  the  use  of  ardent  spirits  in  the  Navy.  (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829- 
1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  589.) 

*  March  1. — Remarks  on  the  question  of  printing  a  memorial  from  the 
Society  of  Friends  in  New  England  on  Indian  affairs  and  the  Indian  question. 
(Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  593,  594.) 

March  10. — Moves  that  the  House  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  for 
the  purpose  of  considering  the  Judiciary  Bill.  Motion  carried.  (Reg.  21  C. 
1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  598.) 

March  13. — Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  to  remit 
the  duties  paid  on  goods  destroyed  by  fire.  (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI., 
pt.  i,  622.) 

*  March  15. — Report  on  a  resolution  for  extending  patent  rights  to  non- 
resident foreigners.     (House  Report  292,  21  C.  1  s.) 

*  March  18. — Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Revolutionary  Pen- 
sioners Bill.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  628.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  the  bill  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading. 
(Id.  629.) 

*  March  22. — Report  on  the  case  of  Nicoll  and  Conard.  (House  Report 
323,  21  C.  1  s.) 

*  March  23. — Report,  and  remarks  thereon,  recommending  impeachment 
of  Judge  Peck.  (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  637;  House  Report 
325,  21  C.  1  s.) 

March  31. — Votes  against  a  resolution  relating  to  the  pay  of  members  of 
Congress.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  720.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  appropriation  for  fortifications.     (Id.  722.) 

*  April  5. — Remarks  on  the  impeachment  of  Judge  Peck.  (Reg.  21  C. 
1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  737.) 

*  April  7. — Remarks  on  the  impeachment  of  Judge  Peck.  (Reg.  21  C. 
1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  746,  747,  748-749,  761.) 

*  April  12. — Report  on  a  bill  concerning  the  terms  and  compensation  of 
United  States  district  judges.     (House  Report  355,  21  C.  1  s.) 

April  14. — Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  concern- 
ing the  Buffalo  and  New  Orleans  Road.  (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI., 
pt.  2,  790.) 

*  April  15. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  the  Buffalo 
and  New  Orleans  Road  Bill.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.   1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  803.) 

April  21. — Moves  that  the  House  resolve  itself  into  Committee  of  the 
Whole.     Motion  carried.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  810.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates. — C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*— Printed  herein. 


xxxii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Moves  to  take  up  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  in  the 
case  of  Judge  Peck.     (Id.  810.) 

*  Speech  on  the  report.     (Id.,  appended,  1-5.) 

April  24. — Calls  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  a  resolution  for  the  impeach- 
ment of  Judge  Peck.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  818.) 
Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolution.     (Id.  818.) 

*  Motion  for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  impeach  Judge  Peck 
before  the  Senate  Committee  appointed.     (Id.  819.) 

*  April  26. — Message  to  the  Senate  on  the  impeachment  of  Judge  Peck. 
(Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  383.) 

*  April  27. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  punishment  of  crimes  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  822,  824.) 

*  April  29. — Report  of  an  article  of  impeachment  of  Judge  Peck.  (Reg. 
21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  863;  id.,  pt.  1,  411-413;  House  Report  385, 
21  C.  1  s.) 

*  April  30. — Motion  to  commit  the  article  of  impeachment  of  Judge 
Peck  to  the  Senate.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  866.) 

*  May  1. — Action  on  the  impeachment  of  Judge  Peck.  Motion  made 
thereon.  Appointed  a  member  of  the  committee.  (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830, 
VI.,  pt.  2,  868-869.) 

*  May  4. — Presentation  to  the  Senate  of  the  article  of  impeachment  of 
Judge  Peck.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  1,  411-413.) 

*  Report  of  presentation  of  the  article  of  impeachment  to  the  Senate. 
(Id.,  pt.  2,  872.) 

*  May  11. — Proposes  a  substitute  for  the  bill  to  amend  the  tariff  laws,  and 
makes  remarks  thereon.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  964,  965.) 

May  12. — Makes  remarks  during  consideration  of  the  bill  to  amend  the 
tariff  laws.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  977,  978.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  979.) 

May  13. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  amend  the  tariff 
laws.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  987.) 

May  14. — Votes  in  favor  of  laying  on  the  table  the  bill  concerning  naviga- 
tion and  imposts.     (Reg.  21  C.  1  s.  1829-1830,  VI.,  pt.  2,  993.) 

December  9. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  a  resolution  referring  that 
part  of  the  President's  message  relating  to  the  public  debt  and  the  revenue 
to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  so  as  to  refer  that  part  relating  to 
the  Bank  of  the  United  States  to  a  select  committee.  (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830- 
1831,  VII.  354.) 

*  December  10. — Motion  for  a  meeting  of  the  House  to  make  preliminary 
arrangements  for  Judge  Peck's  trial.  Motion  adopted.  (Reg.  21  C.  2  s. 
1830-1831,  VII.  354-) 

*  December  13. — Report  of  the  replication  to  Judge  Peck's  plea.  (Reg. 
21    C.    2    s.    1830-183 1,    VII.    354-355-) 

Votes  against  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  repealing 
the  duties  on  sugar.     (Id.  355.) 

*  Resolution  to  inform  the  Senate  regarding  the  impeachment  proceedings 
against  Judge  Peck.     (Id.  356.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  impeachment  of  Judge  Peck.     (Id.  357-) 

*  Presentation  to  the  Senate  of  the  replication  in  the  case  of  Judge 
Peck.     (Id.  4.) 

December  14. — Votes  against  a  resolution  instructing  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means  to  report  a  bill  reducing  the  duties  on  various  articles. 
(Reg.  21   C.  2  s.   1830-1831,  VII.  359) 

December  16. — Votes  in  favor  of  laying  on  the  table  a  proposed  resolu- 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    HOUSE,  1831  xxxiii 

tion  for  the  appointment  of  a  select  committee  on  education.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s. 
1830-1831,  VII.  364.) 

December  17. — Report  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  of  which 
Buchanan  was  a  member,  on  the  laws  relating  to  copyright.  (House  Report 
3,  21  C.  2  s.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  to  establish  certain  post  routes  and  to  discontinue 
others.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  369.) 

December  20. — Remarks  on  the  attendance  of  the  House  at  the  trial  of 
Judge  Peck  before  the  Senate.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  378.) 

Appears  in  the  Senate,  as  a  court  of  impeachment,  ready  to  proceed 
with  the  trial  of  Judge  Peck.     (Id.  19.) 

*  December  23. — Motion  as  to  the  attendance  of  the  House  at  the  trial  of 
Judge  Peck.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  383.) 

Argues  before  the  High  Court  of  Impeachment  in  the  case  of  Judge 
Peck,  as  to  the  admissibility  of  certain  evidence.     (Id.  19.) 

December  27. — Motion  as  to  the  attendance  of  the  House  at  the  trial  of 
Judge  Peck.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  384.) 

December  28. — Motion  as  to  the  attendance  of  the  House  at  the  trial  of 
Judge  Peck.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  386.) 

December  29. — Remarks  on  the  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Judge  Peck 
before  the  High  Court  of  Impeachment.  Rests  the  case  of  the  United  States. 
(Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  23,  24.) 

December  30. — Votes  in  favor  of  laying  on  the  table  a  resolution  relating 
to  the  mileage  of  members  of  Congress.  (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII. 
391- ) 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES    (Continued),   1831. 

*  January  4,  183 1. — Remarks  on  the  attendance  of  the  House  at  the  trial 
of  Judge  Peck.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  399.) 

January  14. — Votes  against  Hall's  amendment  to  the  proposed  resolution 
relating  to  the  mileage  of  members  of  Congress.  (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831, 
VII.  510.) 

*  Moves  the  consideration  of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  insolvent  debtors. 
(Id.  510.) 

January  18. — Remarks  on  the  trial  of  Judge  Peck.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830- 

1831,  VII.  33-34.) 

*  January  24. — Reports  on  the  bill  to  repeal  section  25  of  the  Judiciary 
Act  of  September  4,  1789.  Mr.  Davis'  majority  report.  Mr.  Buchanan's 
minority  report.  (House  Report  43,  21  C.  2  s. ;  Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831, 
VII.  532;  id.,  Appendix,  lxxviHxxxvi.) 

Submission  of  reports.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-183 1,  VII.  532.) 

*  January  25. — Remarks  on  consideration  of  the  bill  to  repeal  the  25th 
section  of  the  Judiciary  Act.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  533-) 

*  Presents  minority  report  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  on  the 
bill.     (Id.  535.) 

*  January  28-29. — Argument,  in  the  Senate,  for  the  conviction  of  Judge 
Peck.  (Arthur  J.  Stansbury,  Report  of  the  Trial  of  James  H.  Peck,  425-473; 
Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-183 1,  VI.  40-41,  44-) 

January  29. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  rejection  of  the  bill  to  repeal  the 
25th  section  of  the  Judiciary  Act  of  September  4,  1789.  (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830- 
1831,  VII.  542.) 

January  31. — Remarks  in  support  of  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  James 
Monroe.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  546.) 

February  1. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  relief  of 
James  Monroe.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  568.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 

iii 


xxxiv  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

*  February  2.— Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  James  Monroe. 
(Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  574.) 

February  3. — Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  read- 
ing the  bill  for  the  relief  of  James  Monroe.  (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII. 
574.) 

February  4. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of 
James  Monroe.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  614.) 

*  February  7. — Remarks  against  a  motion  to  print  3,000  additional  copies 
of  the  majority  and  minority  reports  on  the  question  of  repealing  section  25 
of  the  Judiciary  Act  of  1789.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  620.) 

*  February  8. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  strike  from  the  General  Appro- 
priation Bill  an  appropriation  for  the  salary  of  the  minister  to  Russia.  (Reg. 
21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  654-656.) 

Report  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  rejecting  the  memorial  of 
William  A.  Tennille.     (House  Report  72,  21  C.  2  s.) 

February  9. — Votes  in  favor  of  putting  the  main  question  of  engrossing 
for  a  third  reading  the  General  Appropriation  Bill.  (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830- 
1831,  VII.  677.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  insolvent  debtors.  Moves  that 
the  House  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  consider  the  bill.  Moves  an 
amendment  appropriating  $5,000  to  carry  the  bill  into  effect.     (Id.  678.) 

February  11. — Remarks  and  motion  on  a  bill  to  extend  further  the  patent 
of  Samuel  Browning.      (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  679,  680.) 

Moves  that  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  rise,  and  report  to  the  House 
the  bill  to  compensate  Susan  Decatur,  widow  of  Captain  Stephen  Decatur. 
(Id.  681.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  latter  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  681.) 

February  14. — Votes  in  favor  of  considering  a  motion  to  refer  certain 
memorials  to  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs,  with  instructions  to  report  a 
bill  concerning  relations  with  the  Indians.  (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-183 1,  VII. 
684.) 

February  15. — Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third 
reading  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Susan  Decatur.  The  bill  was  again  rejected. 
(Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  718.) 

February  16. — Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third 
reading  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  officers  and  soldiers  of  the  Revolution. 
(Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  730.) 

February  18. — Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third 
reading  the  bill  for  improving  the  navigation  of  rivers  and  harbors,  etc. 
(Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  755-) 

February  22. — Moves  the  printing  of  3,000  additional  copies  of  the  reports 
of  a  committee  on  foreign  and  United  States  coins.     (Reg.  21   C.  2  s.  1830- 

1831,  VII.  775.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading  the  bill 
for  the  erection  of  an  armory  on  the  Western  waters.     (Id.  778.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  certain  insolvent  debtors  of  the 
United  States.     (Id.  778-780.) 

Moves  an  amendment  to  the  Insolvent  Debtors  Bill,  appropriating  $3,000 
for  the  expenses  of  the  act;  which  is  agreed  to.     (Id.  781.) 

February  23. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  preparation  of  a  code  of  statute 
laws  for  the  District  of  Columbia.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  786.) 

February  24. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  carrying  on  certain  roads  and  works 
of  internal  improvement,  with  reference  to  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  appro- 
priation for  surveys.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  789.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1834         xxxv 

Votes  against  the  motion  to  strike  out  this  appropriation.  The  motion 
was  defeated.     (Id.  789.) 

February  26. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  for  a  subscription 
to  a  compilation  of  Congressional  documents.  (Reg.  21  C  2  s.  1830-1831, 
VII.  320.) 

*  February  28. — Remarks  on  the  Indian  question,  during  the  consideration 
of  the  Indian  Appropriation  Bill.     (Reg.  21  C.  2  s.  1830-1831,  VII.  827.) 

SENATE,    1834. 

December  8,  1834. — The  Chair  communicates  to  the  Senate  the  credentials 
of  James  Buchanan,  elected  a  Senator  by  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature,  to 
supply  the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  resignation  of  William  Wilkins.  (G. 
23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II-  17;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XI.,  pt.  1,  5.) 

December  15. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  qualifies,  and 
takes  his  seat.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II. '36;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835, 
XL,  pt.  1.  7.) 

December  16. — Appointed  a  Senate  member  of  the  joint  committee  of 
the  two  Houses  on  arrangements  on  the  occasion  of  General  Lafayette's 
death.     (Reg.  23  C  2  s.  1834-1835,  XI.,  pt.  1,  7.) 

December  22. — Presents  petitions.     (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  53.) 

December  27. — Moves  that  the  petition  of  Thomas  Anderson  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.     (G.  23  C.  2  s.   1834-1835,  II.  77.) 

SENATE   (Continued),  1835. 

January  2,  1835. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill 
to  exempt  merchandise  imported  under  certain  circumstances  from  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Tariff  Act  of  1828.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  86;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s. 
1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  83.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  for  the  improvement 
of  the  Wabash  River.     (Id.  87;  id.  89.) 

*  January  5. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  exempt  merchandise  imported  under 
certain  circumstances  from  the  operation  of  the  Tariff  Act  of  1828.  (G.  23 
C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  92;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XI.,  pt.  1,  92-93-) 

January  6. — Presents  a  petition  or  memorial.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835, 
II.  95.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  print  20,000  copies  of  a  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Foreign  Relations  upon  relations  with  France.  (G.  23  C  2  s.  1834-1835, 
II.  96;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835.,  XL,  pt.  1,  108.) 

January  7. — Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  improvement  of 
the  Wabash  River.  (|G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  102;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834- 
1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  114.) 

January  14. — Presents  a  petition  or  memorial.     (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835, 

II.  123.) 

Remarks  on  a  resolution  concerning  relations  with  France.  (G.  23  C. 
2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  125,  126;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  206-208,  210, 

213.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  declaring  it  inexpedient  to  adopt  any 
legislative  measures  in  regard  to  the  state  of  affairs  between  the  United 
States  and  France.     (Id.  127;  id.  215.) 

January  15. — Remarks  on  a  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution  in 
relation  to  the  election  of  President  and  Vice-President.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834- 
1835,  II.  129;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  217.) 


Reg. = Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressiona1  Globe. — C.=Congress.— s.=session. 
*= Printed  herein. 


xxxvi  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Remarks  on  a  joint  resolution  authorizing  the  sale  of  certain  animals 
presented  to  the  President  by  the  Emperor  of  Morocco.     (Id.  129;  id.  218.) 

January  16. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  a  bill  for  completing  a 
certain  road  in  Alabama.     (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  132.) 

January  18. — Votes  against  ordering  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading 
a  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  legal  representatives  of  Moses  Shepherd.  (G.  23  C. 
2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  138;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  224.) 

January  19. — Remarks  on  a  bill  authorizing  Alabama  to  apply  the  two 
per  cent,  fund  arising  from  the  sale  of  public  lands  in  that  State,  reserved  for 
roads  in  Alabama,  to  education.  (Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt  1,  231- 
232.) 

January  20. — Votes  in  favor  of  recommitting,  with  instructions,  the  bill 
for  the  relief  of  the  heirs  of  Moses  Shepherd.  (G.  23  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  142; 
Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  234.) 

January  23. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  for 
the  relief  of  the  heirs  of  Lucy  Bond  and  Hannah  Douglass.  (G.  23  C.  2  s. 
1834-1835,  II.  154.) 

January  28. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  resolutions  of 
the  Alabama  Legislature  relative  to  the  removal  of  public  deposits  from  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  177;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s. 
1834-1835.  XL,  pt.  1,  268.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  print  20,000  copies  of  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Post  Office  and  Post  Roads.     (Id.  177;  id.  272.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading  the  bill 
making  compensation  for  French  spoliations  prior  to  1800.     (Id.  177;  id.  272.) 

February  3. — Presents  a  memorial  praying  for  an  appropriation  to  im- 
prove the  Monongahela  River.     (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  189.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill  making  compensation  for  French  spoliations 
prior  to  1800.     (Id.  190;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  282.) 

February  5. — Offers  a  resolution  relating  to  the  claim  of  Valentine 
Geisey,  late  superintendent  of  the  Cumberland  Road.  The  resolution  was 
adopted.     (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  200.) 

Votes  against  ordering  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  to  pur- 
chase certain  pictures  for  the  President's  house.  The  bill  was  rejected. 
(Id.  200;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  313.) 

*  February  6. — Remarks  on  a  bill  to  change  the  organization  of  the 
General  Post  Office.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  206-207;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s. 
1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  343-344) 

February  7. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Post  Office  Bill,  making 
it  the  duty  of  the  Postmaster-General  to  contract  for  the  carrying  of  a  daily 
mail  between  New  Orleans  and  Mobile.  The  amendment  was  rejected. 
(G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  210.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Post  Office  Bill,  providing  that 
every  post  route  should  be  separately  bid  for  and  a  separate  contract  made. 
The  amendment  was  agreed  to.  (Id.  211;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL, 
pt.  1,  358.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Post  Office  Bill,  providing  that  any 
bidder  who  failed  to  obtain  the  main  route,  but  obtained  a  subordinate  route, 
might  give  up  the  latter.     (Id.  211;  id.  358.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Post  Office  Bill,  prohibiting  mail 
contractors  from  running  opposition  passenger  coaches  on  a  route  taken  by 
a  regular  mail  contractor.     (Id.  211;  id.  360.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.= Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session. 
*=  Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1835      xxxvii 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  Post  Office  Bill  for  a  third  reading. 
(Id.  211 ;  id.  360.) 

February  9. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  print  10,000  copies  of  a 
report  on  executive  patronage.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  221 ;  Reg.  23  C. 
2  s.  1834-1835,  XI.,  pt.  1,  392.) 

*  February  10. — Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  bill  fixing  the  number 
and  salaries  of  custom-house  officers,  increasing  the  salary  of  the  Collector 
at  Sandusky  from  $400  to  $600  per  annum.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  224; 
Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  398.) 

February  11. — Presents  a  petition  or  memorial.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835, 
II.  226.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  continuation  and  repair  of  the  Cumberland 
Road,  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  227-228,  228,  228-229;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s. 
1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  400-402,  405-406,  411-412.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  second  and  third  sections  of 
the  Cumberland  Road  Bill,  providing  for  an  appropriation  of  $346,000  to 
repair  the  road  east  of  Ohio,  and  for  the  retrocession  of  the  road  when 
completed.     (Id.  229;  id.  413.) 

February  13. — Votes  in  favor  of  sustaining  the  decision  of  the  Chair  as  to 
the  propriety  of  certain  remarks  made  by  Colonel  Benton  during  a  debate  on 
the  bill  to  repeal  the  act  of  1820  limiting  the  terms  of  civil  officers.  (Reg. 
23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  432.) 

February  14. — Remarks  on  a  bill  to  repeal  the  first  two  sections  of  the 
act  of  1820  limiting  the  terms  of  civil  officers.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II. 
243;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  i,  455.) 

February  16. — Votes  against  engrossing  the  above  bill  for  a  third  reading. 
(G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  251 ;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  491.) 

*  February  17. — Speech  on  the  above  bill.  (Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  XL,  pt.  1, 
495-503;  G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  256.) 

February  18. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  to 
grant  a  township  of  land  to  certain  exiles  from  Poland.  It  was  so  ordered. 
(G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  260;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  513.) 

February  19. — Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  for  the 
relief  of  Charles  J.  Catlett,  for  property  destroyed  by  British  troops  during  the 
War  of  1812.  The  bill  was  rejected.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  265;  Reg. 
23  C  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  536.) 

Introduces  a  bill  to  suspend  further  the  operation  of  certain  provisions 
of  the  Tariff  Act  of  1834.     (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  265.) 

February  20. — Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  repeal  the  first 
two  sections  of  the  act  of  1820,  so  as  to  provide  that  deliberations  of  the 
Senate  on  nominations  shall  be  with  open  doors.  Votes  against  the  amend- 
ment, which  was  rejected.  (G.  23  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  273:  Reg.  23  C  2  s. 
1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  571.) 

*  February  21. — Remarks  on  a  memorial  of  citizens  of  Massachusetts 
praying  the  passage  of  a  non-intercourse  law  with  France.  (G.  23  C.  2  s. 
1834-1835,  II.  276.) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  repeal  the  first  two  sections  of 
the  act  of  1820,  limiting  the  terms  of  certain  civil  officers.  The  bill  was 
passed.     (Id.  276;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  576.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  bill  to 
establish  branches  of  the  United  States  Mint.     (Id.  276;  id.  580.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  recommitting  the  bill  to  the  Committee  on  Finance. 
(Id.  276;  id.  580.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress. 
-- Printed  herein. 


xxxviii         THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Votes  in  favor  of  postponing  the  bill.     (Id.  276;  id.  580.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill  reducing  the  salaries  of  certain 
officers  in  branch  mints.     (Id.  276,  277;  id.  581.) 

Offers  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  repairing  Fort 
Mifflin  and  constructing  pier  batteries  in  the  Delaware  River.     (Id.  277.) 

*  February  23. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  consolidation  of  certain  United 
States  circuit  courts.  (.G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  280;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834- 
1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  591-592.) 

Makes  a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  with  instructions  to  amend  it  so 
as  to  create  two  new  circuits.     (Id.  280;  id.  591.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  his  motion.     (Id.  281 ;  id.  594.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Fortifications  Bill,  providing  for  the 
repair  of  Fort  Mifflin.     (Id.  281.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Fortifications  Bill,  increasing  the  appro- 
priation for  Fort  Delaware.     (Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  594.) 

February  24. — Presents  a  petition  or  memorial.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-183  5, 
II.  283.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  recommitting  with  instructions  the  bill  for  establishing 
branches  of  the  United  States  Mint.  Votes  against  the  bill.  (G.  23  C.  2  s. 
1834-1835,  II.  285,  286;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  613.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill  for  the  consolidation  of  certain  United  States 
circuit  courts,  as  reported  by  the  Judiciary  Committee  in  accordance  with 
the  instructions  of  the  Senate.     (Id.  286;  id.  614.) 

February  25. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  benefit  of  the  cities  of  Washing- 
ton, Georgetown,  and  Alexandria,  D.  C.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  289; 
Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  618.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  engrossment  of  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.  It  was 
so  ordered.     (Id.  289;  id.  619.) 

Moves  an  amendment  to  the  bill  regulating  the  deposit  of  public  money 
in  State  banks  so  as  to  strike  out  the  half  from  the  provision  of  two  and  a 
half  per  cent,  the  sum  to  be  paid  for  the  use  of  public  money  deposited. 
(Id.  289;  id.  621.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill.      (Id.  289;  id.  621.) 

February  26. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  regulating 
the  deposit  of  public  money,  providing  that  each  bank  of  deposit  should  render 
the  same  services  to  the  Government  as  were  rendered  by  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States.  The  amendment  was  adopted.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II. 
296;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  623.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  requiring  the  monthly  returns 
to  be  made  by  the  deposit  banks  to  be  communicated  to  Congress.  (Id.  296; 
id.  623.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  requiring  deposit  banks  to  have 
on  hand  an  amount  of  specie  and  specie-paying  bank-notes  equal  to  one-fourth 
of  their  liabilities.  Votes  against  the  amendment,  which  was  rejected.  Votes 
in  favor  of  an  amendment  requiring  one-fifth,  which  amendment  was  agreed 
to.     (Id.  297-298;  id.  629.) 

Remarks  against  the  bill.     (Id.  296-297;  id.  629-630.) 
Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  298;  id.  630.) 
February    27. — Votes    against    the    passage    of    the    bill    to    regulate    the 
deposit  of  public  money  in  the  State  banks.     The  bill  was  passed.     (G.  23  C. 
2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  300;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  660.) 

February  28. — Votes  against  proceeding  with  the  election  of  a  public 
printer.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  308;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL, 
pt.  1,  697.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe— C.=Congress.—s.=session. 
Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1835        xxxix 

Votes  in  favor  of  postponing  the  subject.     (Id.  308;  id.  697,  698.) 

March  2. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  with  regard  to  furnishing  Senators 

with  Gales  and  Seaton's  Register  of  Debates.    (Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL, 

pt.  1,  700,  701;  G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  314,  3I5-)  < 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  consider  the  resolution.     (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834- 

1835,  II.  314.)     Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  furnish  each  Senator  with 

the  volumes  published  since  the  last  distribution,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id. 

314.)     Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolution,  which  was  adopted.     (Id.  314.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  General  Appropriation  Bill,  to  strike 
out  the  salary  and  outfit  of  a  minister  to  Great  Britain.  (Reg.  23  C.  2  s. 
1834-1835,  XI.,  pt.  1,  703-704;  G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  315.) 

Votes  against  the  amendment.     (Id.  714.) 

Votes  aye  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  a  select  committee  that  no 
suspicion  existed  that  General  Poindexter  was  concerned  in  an  attempted 
assassination  of  the  President.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  315;  Reg.  23  C. 
2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  714.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  General  Appropriation  Bill,  in  favor 
of  certain  custom-house  officers.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  amendment,  which 
was  agreed  to.     (Id.  315 ;  id.  714.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  taking  up  for  consideration  the  resolution  for  expunging 
from  the  journal  of  the  Senate  the  resolution  condemning  the  President.  (Id. 
315;  id.  715.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  making  appropriations  for  the 
Delaware  breakwater  and  for  certain  harbors,  adding  an  appropriation  of 
$10,000  for  the  construction  of  a  harbor  at  Michigan  City.     (Id.  317;  id.  716.) 

March  3. — Votes  in  favor  of  taking  up  the  consideration  of  the  resolution 
for  expunging  from  the  journal  of  the  Senate  the  resolution  condemning  the 
President.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  324;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL, 
pt.  1,  723-) 

Participates  in  a  discussion  on  the  foregoing  resolution.  (Id.  324; 
id.  725.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  resolution,  to  the  effect  that  the 
resolution  of  March  28,  1834,  should  be  "rescinded,  repealed,  reversed,  and 
declared  null  and  void,"  instead  of  expunged.  (Id.  325;  id.  726.)  Votes 
against  a  motion  to  table  the  whole  subject.     (Id.  325;  id.  727.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  print  5,000  additional  copies  of  a  report  on 
the  subject  of  frauds  in  the  sales  of  public  lands.     (Id.  325;  id.  728.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Bill, 
inserting  an  appropriation  of  $300,000.  The  amendment  was  lost.  (Id.  325; 
id.  729.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Fortifications  Bill,  appropriating 
$3,000,000  for  defence,  provided  there  shall  be  necessity  for  it  before  the  fol- 
lowing session  of  Congress.  (Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  734-735; 
Niles'  Weekly  Register,  March  21,  1835,  XLVIII.  53 ;  G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835, 
II.  326.) 

Votes  against  the  amendment.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  326;  Reg. 
23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  738.) 

December  7. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.  (G.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  HI.  1.) 

December  16. — Receives  2  votes  for  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee 
on  Manufactures  against  Senator  McKnight,  who  had  22  votes.  (G.  24  C. 
1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  23.) 

On    the    election    of    chairman    of    the    Committee    on    the    Judiciary. 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress.— s.=session. 
*=Printed  herein. 


xxxviii         THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Votes  in  favor  of  postponing  the  bill.     (Id.  276;  id.  580.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill  reducing  the  salaries  of  certain 
officers  in  branch  mints.     (Id.  276,  277;  id.  581.) 

Offers  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  repairing  Fort 
Mifflin  and  constructing  pier  batteries  in  the  Delaware  River.     (Id.  277.) 

*  February  23. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  consolidation  of  certain  United 
States  circuit  courts.  (-G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  280 ;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834- 
1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  591-592.) 

Makes  a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  with  instructions  to  amend  it  so 
as  to  create  two  new  circuits.     (Id.  280;  id.  591.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  his  motion.     (Id.  281 ;  id.  594.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Fortifications  Bill,  providing  for  the 
repair  of  Fort  Mifflin.     (Id.  281.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Fortifications  Bill,  increasing  the  appro- 
priation for  Fort  Delaware.     (Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  594.) 

February  24. — Presents  a  petition  or  memorial.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-183 5, 
II.  283.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  recommitting  with  instructions  the  bill  for  establishing 
branches  of  the  United  States  Mint.  Votes  against  the  bill.  (G.  23  C.  2  s. 
1834-1835,  II.  285,  286;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  613.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill  for  the  consolidation  of  certain  United  States 
circuit  courts,  as  reported  by  the  Judiciary  Committee  in  accordance  with 
the  instructions  of  the  Senate.     (Id.  286;  id.  614.) 

February  25. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  benefit  of  the  cities  of  Washing- 
ton, Georgetown,  and  Alexandria,  D.  C.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  289; 
Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  618.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  engrossment  of  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.  It  was 
so  ordered.     (Id.  289;  id.  619.) 

Moves  an  amendment  to  the  bill  regulating  the  deposit  of  public  money 
in  State  banks  so  as  to  strike  out  the  half  from  the  provision  of  two  and  a 
half  per  cent,  the  sum  to  be  paid  for  the  use  of  public  money  deposited. 
(Id.  289;  id.  621.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill.     (Id.  289;  id.  621.) 

February  26. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  regulating 
the  deposit  of  public  money,  providing  that  each  bank  of  deposit  should  render 
the  same  services  to  the  Government  as  were  rendered  by  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States.  The  amendment  was  adopted.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II. 
296;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  623.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  requiring  the  monthly  returns 
to  be  made  by  the  deposit  banks  to  be  communicated  to  Congress.  (Id.  296; 
id.  623.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  requiring  deposit  banks  to  have 
on  hand  an  amount  of  specie  and  specie-paying  bank-notes  equal  to  one-fourth 
of  their  liabilities.  Votes  against  the  amendment,  which  was  rejected.  Votes 
in  favor  of  an  amendment  requiring  one-fifth,  which  amendment  was  agreed 
to.     (Id.  297-298;  id.  629.) 

Remarks  against  the  bill.     (Id.  296-297;  id.  629-630.) 
Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  298;  id.  630.) 
February    27. — Votes    against   the    passage    of    the    bill    to    regulate    the 
deposit  of  public  money  in  the  State  banks.     The  bill  was  passed.     (G.  23  C. 
2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  300;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  660.) 

February  28. — Votes  against  proceeding  with  the  election  of  a  public 
printer.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  308;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL, 
pt.  1,  697.) 


Re£.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session. 
*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1835       xxxix 

Votes  in  favor  of  postponing  the  subject.     (Id.  308;  id.  697,  698.) 

March  2. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  with  regard  to  furnishing  Senators 

with  Gales  and  Seaton's  Register  of  Debates.    (Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XI., 

pt.  i,  700,  701 ;  G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  314,  315.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  consider  the  resolution.     (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834- 

1835,  II.  314.)     Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  furnish  each  Senator  with 

the  volumes  published  since  the  last  distribution,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id. 

314.)     Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolution,  which  was  adopted.     (Id.  314.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  General  Appropriation  Bill,  to  strike 
out  the  salary  and  outfit  of  a  minister  to  Great  Britain.  (Reg.  23  C.  2  s. 
1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  703-704;  G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  315.) 

Votes  against  the  amendment.     (Id.  714.) 

Votes  aye  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  a  select  committee  that  no 
suspicion  existed  that  General  Poindexter  was  concerned  in  an  attempted 
assassination  of  the  President.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  315;  Reg.  23  C. 
2  s.  1834-1835,  XI.,  pt.  1,  714.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  General  Appropriation  Bill,  in  favor 
of  certain  custom-house  officers.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  amendment,  which 
was  agreed  to.     (Id.  315;  id.  714.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  taking  up  for  consideration  the  resolution  for  expunging 
from  the  journal  of  the  Senate  the  resolution  condemning  the  President.  (Id. 
315;  id.  715.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  making  appropriations  for  the 
Delaware  breakwater  and  for  certain  harbors,  adding  an  appropriation  of 
$10,000  for  the  construction  of  a  harbor  at  Michigan  City.     (Id.  317;  id.  716.) 

March  3. — Votes  in  favor  of  taking  up  the  consideration  of  the  resolution 
for  expunging  from  the  journal  of  the  Senate  the  resolution  condemning  the 
President.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  324;  Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL, 
pt.  1,  723.) 

Participates  in  a  discussion  on  the  foregoing  resolution.  (Id.  324; 
id.  725-) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  resolution,  to  the  effect  that  the 
resolution  of  March  28,  1834,  should  be  "rescinded,  repealed,  reversed,  and 
declared  null  and  void,"  instead  of  expunged.  (Id.  325;  id.  726.)  Votes 
against  a  motion  to  table  the  whole  subject.     (Id.  325;  id.  727.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  print  5,000  additional  copies  of  a  report  on 
the  subject  of  frauds  in  the  sales  of  public  lands.     (Id.  325;  id.  728.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  Bill, 
inserting  an  appropriation  of  $300,000.  The  amendment  was  lost.  (Id.  325; 
id.  729.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Fortifications  Bill,  appropriating 
$3,000,000  for  defence,  provided  there  shall  be  necessity  for  it  before  the  fol- 
lowing session  of  Congress.  (Reg.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  734-735; 
Niles'  Weekly  Register,  March  21,  1835,  XLVIII.  53 ;  G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835, 
II.  326.) 

Votes  against  the  amendment.  (G.  23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  II.  326;  Reg. 
23  C.  2  s.  1834-1835,  XL,  pt.  1,  738.) 

December  7. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.  (G.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  III.  1.) 

December  16. — Receives  2  votes  for  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee 
on  Manufactures  against  Senator  McKnight,  who  had  22  votes.  (G.  24  C. 
1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  23.) 

On    the    election    of    chairman    of    the    Committee    on    the    Judiciary. 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress.—s.= session. 
*=Printed  herein. 


xl  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Buchanan  received  16  votes  against  22  for  Clayton.     (Id.  24;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  12.) 

December  17. — Elected  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary. 
(G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  26;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  13.) 

*  December  21. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  refer  to  a  select  committee  that 
part  of  the  President's  message  relating  to  the  transmission  through  the  mails 
of  incendiary  publications  on  slavery.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  36; 
Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  28.) 

*  December  22. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  receive  the  Senators  from 
Michigan  as  spectators  until  a  decision  on  the  application  of  that  State  for 
admission.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  43 ;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII., 
pt.  1,  41.) 

December  24. — Presents  a  petition  of  Pennsylvania  citizens  as  to  the 
importation  of  iron.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  49.) 

December  29. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  to  supply  Senators  with 
the  usual  newspapers.     (Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  54.) 

December  30. — Moves  to  grant  leave  to  Thomas  W.  Anderson  to  with- 
draw his  petition  from  the  Senate  files.     (G.  24  C.   1  s.   1835-1836,  III.  58.) 

SENATE  (Continued),  1836. 

*  January  4,  1836. — Remarks  on  the  Judicial  System  Bill.  (G.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  III.  66,  67;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  59,  62.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  as  to  the  second  judicial  district.  (Id.  67; 
id.  63.) 

*  January  5. — Moves  amendments  to  the  Judicial  System  Bill.  (G.  24  C. 
1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  68;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  68.) 

January  6. — Report  on  the  memorial  of  James  Smith.  (G.  24  C  1  s. 
1835-1836,  III.  70.) 

Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  Judicial  System  Bill.  (Id.  70;  Reg. 
24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  1,  65.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  proposed  resolution  concerning  the  regulation  of  the 
Senate  Chamber  and  galleries.     (Id.  72;  id.  70.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  allowing  each  Senator  to  admit  into  the 
circular  gallery  a  [blank]  number  of  persons.     (Id.  72;  id.  71.) 

Votes  for  an  amendment  opening  the  circular  gallery  to  spectators. 
Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  allowing  each  Senator  to  admit  a  number  of 
persons  into  the  lobby  of  the  Senate.     (Id.  72;  id.  71.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolution  as  amended.     (Id.  72;  id.  72.) 

*  January  7. — Remarks  on  petitions  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  76-77;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  82-85.) 

Moves  that  the  whole  subject  be  postponed.     (Id.  77;  id.  85.) 
January   11. — Presents  a  memorial   of  citizens   of   Philadelphia   for   the 
erection  of  certain  piers  and  light-houses.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  83.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  memorial  presented  by  him  for  the  abolition  of  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia.   (Id.  83 ;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  1,  99.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  to  repeal  the  1st 
and  2d  sections  of  an  act  to  limit  the  terms  of  certain  civil  officers.  (Id. 
84;  id.  104.) 

*  January  13. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  sufferers  by  the  fire 
at  New  York  on  December  16,  1835.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  99;  Reg. 
24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  1,  125-126.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates. — G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress. — s.=session. 
: Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1836  xli 

Votes  against  a  proposal  to  strike  out  a  clause  for  the  extension  of 
payment  of  certain  bonds  given  for  duties  at  the  port  of  New  York.  (Id.  ioo; 
id.  129.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  bill.     (Id.  100;  id.  129.) 

*  January  18. — Remarks  on  the  President's  messages  relating  to  affairs 
with  France.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  113-114,  "5  J  Reg.  24  C.  1  s 
1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  168-169,  177-178.) 

Presents  a  memorial  from  insurance  interests  in  Philadelphia,  in  relation 
to  New  Castle.     (Id.  115.) 

January  19. — Moves  that  the  petition  presented  by  him  praying  for  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  his  motion  to  reject 
it,  be  taken  up  for  consideration.  Motion  agreed  to.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836, 
III.  122;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  209.) 

January  20. — Moves  that  the  Senate  proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
executive  business.  Motion  carried.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  125;  Reg. 
24  C  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  1,  233.) 

January  21. — Moves  that  when  the  Senate  adjourn,  it  adjourn  to  the 
Monday  following.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  127.) 

January  25. — Presents  memorials  concerning  improvements  in  the  Dela- 
ware River,  and  the  abolition  of  slaverv  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  (G.  24 
C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  136.) 

January  26. — Votes  on  a  motion  to  refer  a  petition  from  the  Michigan 
Legislature  for  the  admission  of  that  State  into  the  Union.  (G.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  HI.  141 ;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  1,  289.) 

January  28. — Remarks  on  a  petition  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.  Moves  to  lay  the  question  on  the  table,  which  was 
agreed  to.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  147;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII, 
pt.  1,  302-303.) 

February  1. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  importation  of  a  church  bell 
free  of  duty!     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  156.) 

*  February  1-2. — Speech  on  a  resolution  for  appropriating  the  surplus 
revenue  to  the  national  defence.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  Ill,  Appendix,  60-70;  G.  24 
C.  1  s.  III.  157,  160;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  1,  325-356.) 

February  3. — Remarks  during  the  discussion  on  the  foregoing  resolution. 
(G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III,  Appendix,  72.) 

February  4. — Introduces  a  resolution  concerning  the  regulations  as  to 
the  use  of  the  circular  lobby  of  the  Senate.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III. 
165.) 

February  9. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  removal  of  negroes  to  Africa. 
Makes  remarks  and  motions  concerning  this  memorial.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835- 
1836,  III.  173;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  1,  442.) 

Presents  the  petition  of  Elizabeth  Flicker,  widow  of  Henry  Richardson, 
for  relief.     (Id.  173.) 

Remarks  on  the  resolution  for  appropriating  the  surplus  revenue  to  the 
national  defence.     (Id,  Appendix,  80.) 

*  February  12. — Remarks  on  a  memorial  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III,  Appendix,  93-94;  Reg. 
24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  1,  496;  G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  180.) 

Moves  that  when  the  Senate  adjourn,  it  adjourn  to  the  Monday  follow- 
ing.    (Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  1,  497.) 

February  15. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  increase  of  the  salaries  of 
inspectors  of  the  port  of  Philadelphia.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  185.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.= Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session. 
*=Printed  herein. 


xlii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

February  16. — Makes  a  report  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  on 
the  petition  of  Thomas  Tenant.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  188.) 

Remarks  on  a  resolution  relating  to  the  admission  of  ladies  into  the 
Senate  circular  lobby.     (Id.  188;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  I,  531.) 

Votes  against  striking  out  the  clause  which  allows  each  Senator  to  admit 
three  persons.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  188.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  that  the  circular  gallery  be  appropriated  to 
ladies  and  to  gentlemen  accompanying  them.  (Id.  188;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835- 
1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  532.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  original  resolution.     (Id.  188;  id.  532.) 

February  18. — Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  the  resolution  for 
appropriating  the  surplus  revenue  to  the  national  defence.  Votes  against  a 
motion  to  strike  out  the  word  "surplus."  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  192, 
193;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII. ,  pt.  1,  572.) 

Remarks  on  the  resolution.  (Id.,  Appendix,  117;  id.  576;  G.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  III.  193.) 

February  19. — Presents  the  petition  of  Russell  Jarvis  for  an  appropriation 
for  testing  an  invention.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  197.) 

Votes  against  third  reading  of  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Moses  Shepherd. 
(Id.  198;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt  1,  580.) 

February  22. — Moves  the  printing  of  5,000  extra  copies  of  the  President's 
message  on  the  mediation  of  Great  Britain  in  the  disagreement  with  France, 
which  was  agreed  to.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  200;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835- 
1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  590.) 

February  25. — Remarks  on  taking  up  a  memorial  on  the  abolition  of 
slavery.     (Reg.  24  C.   1   s.   1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.   1,  615.) 

Moves  to  consider  executive  business,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  615.) 

*  February  26. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  continuation  of  the  Cumber- 
land Road  in  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  208. 
Appendix,  165;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  4,  4633-4635,  pt  1,  635.) 

February  29. — Presents  memorials  for  a  light-house  on  the  New  Jersey 
coast.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  III.  213.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  memorial  of  the  Society  of  Friends  of  Lancaster  County, 
Pennsylvania,  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  (Id- 
Appendix,  135,  323.) 

*  March  1. — Remarks  on  a  report  concerning  the  Ohio  and  Michigan 
boundary.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  III.  215;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  664.) 

*  March  2. — Speech  in  opposition  to  Calhoun's  motion  against  the  recep- 
tion of  the  petition  of  the  Society  of  Friends  of  Lancaster  County,  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  in  support  of  his  own  motion  to  reject  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners. 
(G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  219,  Appendix,  181-185 ;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  XII., 
pt.  1,  679-690.) 

March  4. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill, 
substituting  an  appropriation  of  $100,000  instead  of  $350,000  for  the  road  in 
Indiana.  The  amendment  was  rejected.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  226; 
Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  724,  725-) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  substituting  $200,000  instead  of 
$320,000  for  the  road  in  Ohio.  The  amendment  was  agreed  to.  (Id.  226;  id. 
721.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  limit  the  purposes  of  the  appropriation 
for  the  road  in  Illinois.    The  amendment  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  227;  id.  724.) 

Votes   against   an   amendment  appropriating  $150,000   for   the   repair   of 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress.— s.=session. 
*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1836         xliii 

the  road  from  Chattahoochie  to  Chotocton,  and  from  Mobile  to  New  Orleans. 
(Id.  227;  id.  725.) 

March  7. — Presents  the  petition  of  John  Gardner  for  compensation  for 
horses  lost  in  the  War  of  1812.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  229.) 

March  9. — Votes  in  favor  of  reception  of  the  petition  of  the  Society  of 
Friends  of  Lancaster,  Pennsylvania,  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.  The  question  was  decided  affirmatively.  (G.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  III.  239;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  779-) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  concerning  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.     (Id.  239-240;  id.  780-781.) 

March  10. — Moves  to  refer  the  President's  message  relating  to  the  forma- 
tion of  a  constitution  and  State  government  for  the  Territory  of  Arkansas 
to  a  select  committee  of  five.  The  motion  was  carried.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835- 
1836,  III.  240;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  782.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  laying  on  the  table  a  motion  to  take  up  the  bill 
relating  to  the  boundary  between  Ohio  and  Michigan.     (Id.  241 ;  id.  785.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  subject  of  the  petition  of 
the  Society  of  Friends,  and  Clay's  amendment  to  the  motion  to  reject  the 
prayer.     (Id.  242;  id.  787.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  relating  to  the  boundary  between 
Ohio  and  Michigan,  giving  assent  to  the  boundary  fixed  in  the  constitution 
of  Ohio.  The  amendment  was  rejected.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the 
bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  242;  id.  799.) 

March  11. — Presents  the  petition  of  Brigadier-General  John  P.  de  Haas. 
(G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  245.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill.  (Id.  246; 
Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  802,  803.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  the  bill  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading, 
which  was  done.     (Id.  247;  id.  803.) 

Votes  against  two  amendments  to  his  motion  to  reject  the  prayer  of  the 
petition  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  of  Lancaster,  Pennsylvania,  for  the 
abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  declaring  legislation  on  the 
subject  inexpedient.  The  amendments  were  rejected.  (Id.  247;  id.  804.) 
Votes  in  favor  of  his  motion  to  reject  the  prayer,  which  was  carried.  (Id. 
248;  id.  810.) 

March  14. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  consider  the  bill  to  appropriate  for 
a  limited  time  the  proceeds  of  sales  of  public  lands.  Votes  against  the 
motion.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  252;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII., 
pt.  i,  810.) 

Moves  the  election  of  a  select  committee  to  consider  the  proposed  consti- 
tution of  Arkansas.     Elected  chairman  of  the  committee.     (Id.  252.) 

March  15. — Remarks  on  the  motion  to  consider  the  bill  to  appropriate 
for  a  limited  time  the  proceeds  of  sales  of  public  lands.  Votes  against  the 
motion.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  255;  Reg.  24  C  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII., 
pt.  i,  811.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  adjourn.  Remarks  on  the  Land  Bill.  Move;: 
that  the  Senate  proceed  to  consider  executive  business,  which  was  agreed  to. 
(Id.  255;  id.  833.^ 

March  16. — Presents  petitions.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  258,  259.) 

March  21. — Lays  on  the  table  resolutions  of  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature 
relating  to  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands,  and  for  the  defence  01 
the  country.     (G.  24  C.   1   s.   1835-1836,   III.  271.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session. 
Printed  herein. 


xliv  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES]BUCHANAN 

March  22. — Reports  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  Arkansas  into  the  Union. 
(G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  275;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  934.) 

Remarks  on  the  question  of  the  day  for  considering  the  bill.  (Id.  275; 
id.  934-) 

March  23. — Presents  a  petition  for  the  increase  of  salaries  of  custom- 
house officers  of  Philadelphia.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  280.) 

March  24. — Presents  a  petition  for  the  refunding  of  certain  duties  paid 
by  Morris  Wain  &  Co.,  of  Philadelphia.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  284.) 

Remarks  on  a  joint  resolution  designating  a  day  for  the  adjournment 
of  Congress.     (Id.  284;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  963.) 

Votes  against  engrossment  for  a  third  reading  of  the  bill  for  the  relief 
of  the  corporate  cities  of  the  District  of  Columbia.     (Id.  285;  id.  964.) 

March  28. — Presents  a  petition  for  the  erection  of  a  new  custom-house 
in  Philadelphia.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  298.) 

Votes  against  the  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  resolution  fixing  a  da}' 
of  adjournment  of  Congress.  Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  resolution 
fixing  May  20th.  Votes  against  an  amendment  making  the  23rd  day  of 
May  the  day  of  adjournment.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolution  as  amended, 
which  was  adopted.     (Id.  299;  Reg.  24  C  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  981.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Revolutionary  Pensioners  Bill  con  - 
cerning  specie  payments.     (Id.  299,  Appendix,  239-240;  id.  1004,  1005.) 

*  March  30. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  establish  the  northern  boundary  of 
Ohio,  and  to  provide  for  the  admission  of  Michigan.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1 835-1836. 
III.  306,  Appendix,  309-310,  where  date  is  erroneously  given  as  April  1,  183^; 
Reg.  24  C.   1   s.   1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.   1,   1011-1015.) 

March  31. — Participates  in  a  debate  on  bills  relating  to  public  lands. 
(Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  1031.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  refer  the  bills  to  the  Committee  on  Public 
Lands.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  310;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII., 
pt.  1,  1032.) 

*  April  1. — Speech  in  reply  to  arguments  against  the  admission  of  Michi- 
gan into  the  Union.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  311,  312,  Appendix,  397- 
400;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  1037-1046.) 

Votes  against  motions  to  adjourn.     (Id.  311,  312;  id.  1046.) 
Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill  providing   for  the  admission 
of   Michigan.     Votes   in   favor   of   ordering  the  bill   to  be   engrossed   for   a 
third  reading,  which  was  directed.     (Id.  311-312;  id.  1046-1048.) 

April  2. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  to  establish  the 
northern  boundary  of  Ohio,  and  to  provide  for  the  admission  of  Michigan. 
Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table.  Votes  against  a  motion 
to  adjourn,  which  was  lost.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill,  which  was  passed. 
(G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  313;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  1050.) 

*  Moves  that  the  Senate  take  up  the  consideration  of  the  bill  for  the 
admission  of  Arkansas.  Votes  against  motions  to  adjourn.  Remarks  on 
the  bill.     (Id.  313-314;   id.   1052-1053.) 

*  April  4. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Arkansas.  (G.  24  C. 
1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  315-316;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  1053-1054.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill,  which  was  passed.     (Id.  316;  id.  1056.) 
April  13. — Presents  several  memorials  and  petitions.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835- 
1836,  III.  35I-) 

April  14. — Motion,  and  remarks  thereon,  to  appoint  a  committee  of  con- 
ference on  the  disagreement  of  the  two  Houses  as  to  the  amendment  to  the 
bill  establishing  the  territorial  government  of  Wisconsin,  which  reduces  the 


Reg\= Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress. 
*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1836  xlv 

salary  of  the  Governor.     Appointed  chairman  of  the  committee.     (G.  24  C. 
1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  358;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  H77-) 

April  18. — Report  of  the  conference  committee  on  the  disagreement  of  the 
two  Houses  on  the  foregoing  amendment.  Moves  that  the  Senate  recede  from 
its  disagreement  to  the  amendment,  and  the  question  was  decided  in  the 
affirmative.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  370;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII., 
pt.  1,  1 199) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  to  authorize  contracts  for  transportation  of  United 
States  mail  and  property  on  railroads.     (Id.  372;  id.  1203-1205.) 

April  20. — Presents  the  petition  of  Colonel  Jacob  Slough,  for  increase 
of  pension.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  378.) 

April  22. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  legal  representatives 
of  the  widows  of  Colonels  Bond  and  Douglass.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III. 
384;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  1253.) 

Votes  against  the  bill.     (Id.  384;  id.  1254.) 

*  April  25. — Presents  a  petition  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  of  Philadelphia, 
remonstrating  against  the  admission  of  Arkansas  while  the  bill  contained  the 
provision  in  relation  to  slavery.  Remarks  on  the  subject.  Moves  to  lay  the 
petition  on  the  table,  which  was  agreed  to.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  395; 
Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  1,  1277-1278.) 

Submits  a  resolution  of  inquiry  into  the  expediency  of  contracting  with 
Luigi  Persico  for  two  groups  of  statues.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  395.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  concerning  the  proceeds  of  sales 
of  public  lands,  changing  the  ratio  of  distribution.  (Id.  398;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1286.) 

April  26. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Naval  Appropriations 
Bill,  increasing  the  appropriation  for  the  pay  of  the  Navy.  (G.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  III.  403;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1299.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  403.) 

Votes  against  postponing  consideration  of  the  bill  to  distribute  the 
proceeds  of  sales  of  public  lands.  (Id.  403;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII., 
pt.  2,  1301.)     Votes  against  laying  the  bill  on  the  table.     (Id.  403;  id.  1302.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing 
the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was  ordered.  (Id.  403-404;  Appendix, 
317,  318,  319,  321 ;  id.  1305-1306,  1308,  1313O 

*  April  28. — Moves  to  take  up  the  resolution  as  to  contracting  with 
Luigi  Persico  for  two  groups  of  statues.  Remarks  on  the  subject.  (G.  24  C. 
1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  406-407;  Reg.  24  C  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1314-1315, 

131571317.) 

The  resolution  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  408;  id.  1318.) 

April  29. — Votes  against  a  motion  that  when  the  Senate  adjourn,  it 
adjourn  till  the  Tuesday  following.  Remarks  on  a  motion  that  when  Senate 
adjourn,  it  adjourn  till  the  Monday  following.  Votes  against  this  motion. 
(G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  411 ;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1374.) 

April  30. — Remarks  on  a  bill  relating  to  the  bequest  of  James  Smithson. 
Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  the  bill  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading.  (G. 
24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  413;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1377, 
1378.) 

May  2. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  improvement  of  certain  harbors  and 
for  making  certain  surveys.  Votes  against  an  appropriation  for  the  Pearl  and 
Pascagoula  rivers,  in  Mississippi.  Votes  against  an  appropriation  for  remov- 
ing an  obstruction  in  the  Ohio  River  below   Shippingport.     Votes  in  favor 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress. 
*=Printed  herein. 


xlvi  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (G.  24  C  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  415; 
Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  2,  1383-1384.) 

May  4. — Presents  the  presentment  of  the  grand  jury  of  the  circuit  court 
for  the  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania,  recommending  the  erection  of  a 
court-house  and  jail  in  Philadelphia.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  416.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  service  of  volunteers  for  the  defence  of  the 
frontiers.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  416,  Appendix,  406;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  2,  1394-1395- ) 

Votes  in  favor  of  passing  the  bill  to  distribute  for  a  limited  time  the 
proceeds  of  sales  of  public  lands  among  the  States.     (Id.  416;  id.  1396.) 

May  5. — Remarks  on  certain  features  of  the  General  Appropriation  Bill. 
(G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  420,  421;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  2, 
1402.) 

*  May  9. — Remarks  on  memorials  for  the  recognition  of  Texas  and 
concerning  Texan  affairs.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  437-438;  Reg.  24  C. 
1   s.   1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  2,  1422-1424.) 

May  11. — Presents  the  petition  of  Hannah  Caldwell,  praying  for  arrear- 
ages of  pension.     (G.  24  C.  1   s.   1835-1836,  III.  445.) 

May  12. — Reports  a  bill  supplemental  to  the  act  for  the  admission  of 
Arkansas.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  449.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  the  Fortifications  Bill  on  the  table.  (Id. 
449;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  2,  1432.) 

*Remarks  on  the  bill.     (Id.  449-450;  id.  1432-1433.) 

May  14. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Richard  C.  Stockton, 
William  B.  Stokes,  and  others.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  458;  Reg.  24  C. 
1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  2,  1 448-1449.) 

Votes  against  striking  out  the  second  section  of  the  bill  for  the  relief 
of  the  corporate  cities  of  the  District  of  Columbia.     (Id.  459;  id.  1452.) 

May  17. — Presents  memorials  for  the  acknowledgment  of  Texan  inde- 
pendence.    (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  464.) 

May  18. — Remarks  on  the  postponement  of  a  bill  to  authorize  the  Presi- 
dent to  appoint  three  additional  paymasters.      (Reg.  24  C.   1   s.  XII,  pt.  2, 

1463-) 

May  19. — Appointed  a  member  of  the  conference  committee  on  the  dis- 
agreement between  the  two  Houses  as  to  the  bill  for  the  services  of  volunteers 
for  the  defence  of  the  frontiers.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  473;  Reg.  24  C. 
1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  2,  1464.) 

*  May  20. — Remarks  on  the  disagreement  of  the  two  Houses.  (G.  24  C. 
1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  478,  479;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  2,  1505-1506, 
1 508-1 5 10.) 

May  21. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Fortifications  Bill.  (G.  24 
C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  483;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  2,  1524-1525.) 

*  May  23. — Remarks  on  memorials  presented  for  the  recognition  of  the 
independence  of  Texas.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  489;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s. 

1835-1836,  xii,  pt.  2,  1536-1537O 

Presents  a  memorial  from  citizens  of  Pennsylvania  for  the  recognition  of 
Texan    independence.     (Id.    489. ) 

May  24. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Fortifications  Bill.  (G.  24 
C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  493,  494;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  2,  1550.) 

May  25. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Fortifications  Bill.  (G.  24 
C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  497,  498;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII,  pt.  2,  1575, 

1576.) 

Moves  that  the  Senate  take  up  the  consideration  of  the  bill  supplementary 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session. 
*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1836         xlvii 

to  the  act  providing  for  the  admission  of  Arkansas.     Moves  an  amendment  to 
the  bill,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  498;  id.  I577-) 

May  26. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  Fortifications  Bill.  (G.  24 
C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  505;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1592.) 

*  May  28. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  regulate  the  deposits  of  public  money, 
and  on  an  amendment  as  to  the  sum  always  to  be  kept  in  the  Treasury. 
(G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  509,  Appendix,  424-426;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835- 
1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1635-1641.) 

May  31. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  to  reward 
the  captors  of  the  frigate  Philadelphia.  (Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII., 
pt.  2,  1649-) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  to  establish  a  day  for  the  annual  meeting  of  Congress. 
(G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  513.) 

Appointed  a  member  of  a  select  committee  to  which  was  referred  the  bill 
to  regulate  the  deposits  of  public  money.  (Id.  514;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836, 
XII.,  pt.  2,  1657-) 

Votes  in  favor  of  taking  up  the  bill  to  increase  the  military  peace  estab- 
lishment.    (Id.  514;  id.  658.) 

June  1. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  whole  subject  of 
the  charges  against  B.  F.  Curry  and  Samuel  Gwinn,  and  their  responses. 
(G.  24  C.  1  s.  1836-1836,  III.  519;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1668.) 

June  2. — Report  on  a  bill  to  provide  for  the  execution  of  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  in  Michigan.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  521.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  prohibit  the  circulation  through 
the  mails  of  incendiary  publications,  and  to  provide  for  the  disposition  of 
those  sent  to  persons  in  States  where  they  are  prohibited  by  law.  The  amend- 
ment was  rejected.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading, 
which  was  ordered.     (Id.  522;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1675.) 

June  4. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  to  extend  the 
charter  of  certain  banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Votes  on  various  mo- 
tions to  strike  out  portions  of  the  bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill 
for  a  third  reading.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  531 ;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835- 
1836,  XIL,  pt.  2,  1695,  1696.) 

June  6. — Votes  against  postponing  indefinitely  a  bill  to  extend  the  time 
for  receiving  proof  of  pre-emption  claims  under  the  act  of  1834.  Votes  in 
favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III. 
532;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XIL,  pt.  2,  1697.) 

June  7. — Introduces  a  resolution  for  inquiring  into  the  expediency  of 
establishing  a  post  route  from  Danville  to  Cattawissa,  Pennsylvania.  (G.  24 
C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  535.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  first  section  of  the  bill  to  extend 
the  time  for  proving  pre-emption  claims  suspended  by  the  contingent  location 
of  certain  alleged  Choctaw  reservations.  Remarks  on  the  bill.  (Id.  535; 
Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XIL,  pt.  2,  1698.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  extend  the  charters  of  certain 
banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     (Id.  535;  id.  1720.) 

*  June  8. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  prohibit  deputy  postmasters  from 
receiving  and  transmitting  certain  papers  described  therein,  in  the  States  in 
which  they  should  be  prohibited  by  law.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  539, 
Appendix,  454~455,  456-457,  458;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XIL,  pt.  2,  1722- 
1726,  1732-1735,  1736.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill.     (Id.  539,  Appendix,  458;  id.  737.) 

June  9. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  supplementary  to  the 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.= Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress — s.=session. 
*=  Printed  herein. 


xlviii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

act  establishing  the  northern  boundary  of  Ohio  and  for  the  admission  of 
Michigan,  exempting  from  taxation  for  five  years  lands  in  Michigan  sold 
by  the  United  States.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  540.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill  to  extend  the  time  for  receiving  proof  of  pre- 
emption claims  under  the  act  of  1834.  (Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1 835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2, 
1742.) 

June  10. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  increase  the  military  peace  establishment. 
Votes  in  favor  of  certain  instructions  to  the  committee  to  which  the  bill  was 
recommitted.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  543,  544;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835- 
1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1756,  I757-) 

June  13. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill  to  regulate  the  deposits 
of  public  money.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  548;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836, 
XII.,  pt.  2,  1766;  G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.,  Appendix,  120.) 

June  14. — Submits  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  providing 
for  the  compensation  of  Senators  and  Representatives  from  Michigan.  (G. 
24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  55I-) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  to  change  the  organization  of  the  Post  Office  Depart- 
ment.    (Id.  552;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1770.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  regulate  the  deposits  of  public 
money,  providing  that  outstanding  appropriations  shall  be  deducted  prior  to 
a  distribution  of  the  surplus  to  the  States.  (Id.  553;  id.  1777-1778.)  Votes 
in  favor  of  recommitting  the  bill,  with  instructions  to  bring  in  two  bills,  one 
to  regulate  the  deposits  of  public  money,  and  the  other  for  the  distribution 
of  the  surplus  to  the  States.     (Id.  553;  id.  1778.) 

June  15. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  to  recommit  the 
bill  regulating  the  deposits  of  public  money,  with  certain  instructions.  (G.  24 
C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  556;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1780.) 

June  16. — Submits  motions  as  to  amendments  made  by  the  House  to 
the  bills  relating  to  Ohio,  Michigan,  and  Arkansas.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836, 
III.  558;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1781.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  to  regulate  the  deposits 
of  public  money,  with  instructions.      (Id.  559;  id.  1782.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the  distribution  of  the 
surplus.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was 
ordered.     (Id.  559,  560;  id.  1785,  1786,  1787.) 

June  17. — Introduces  a  resolution  to  extend  to  his  widow  the  pension 
granted  to  Simon  Kenton.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  362.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  regulate  the  deposits  of  public 
money.  (Id.  562,  Appendix,  532-533;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2, 
1800-1805.)     Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  562;  id.  1845.) 

June  18. — Presents  a  memorial  in  favor  of  the  box  system  in  the  Post 
Office.     (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  564-) 

*  June  20. — Remarks  on  Davis's  amendment  and  his  own  amendment  to 
the  bill  for  the  reorganization  of  the  Post  Office,  concerning  the  box  system. 
Moves  an  amendment  as  to  returns  to  be  made  for  box  rentals.  Votes  against 
Davis's  amendment.  Votes  in  favor  of  his  own  amendment.  (;G.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  III.  567;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1850,  1851.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  first  section  of  the  bill  to  increase 
the  military  peace  establishment.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  strike  out 
sections  giving  the  franking  privilege  to  the  War  Department,  authorizing  the 
equipment  of  one  regiment  of  infantry  as  a  regiment  of  riflemen,  and  directing 
certain  officers  to  perform  the  duties  of  superior  officers  who  may  be  absent. 
(Id.  568;  id.  1853.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session. 
Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1836  xlix 

Moves  to  refer  a  bill  concerning  the  judicial  system  of  Arkansas  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary.     (Id.   568.) 

*  June  21. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  organizing  the  Navy  of  the  United 
States.  Votes  in  favor  of  laying  the  bill  on  the  table.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835- 
1836,  III.  571 ;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1856-1857.) 

June  22. — Remarks  on  the  House  amendment  to  the  bill  to  regulate  the 
deposits  of  public  money.  (Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  575;  G.  24 
C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  575-) 

June  23. — Votes  in  favor  of  taking  up  the  bill  to  change  the  mode  of 
conducting  the  sales  of  public  lands.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  post- 
pone the  bill  indefinitely.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  578,  579;  Reg.  24  C. 
1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1867,  1870.) 

*  June  24. — Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  reorganization 
of  the  Army,  increasing  the  number  of  lieutenants  to  350.  Moves  an  amend- 
ment, which  was  rejected,  fixing  the  number  at  300.  Votes  in  favor  of  a 
motion  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table.  Moves  a  further  amendment  fixing  the 
number  of  captains  at  40  instead  of  50,  and  the  number  of  midshipmen  at  60 
instead  of  75;  the  amendment  was  agreed  to.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III. 
584;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  18357836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1874-1875.) 

June  25. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  bill  to  grant 
certain  lands  to  Indiana,  Illinois,  Alabama,  and  Mississippi.  (G.  24  C.  1  s. 
1835-1836,  III.  585;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XIL,  pt.  2,  1876.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill,  returned  from  the  House  with  amendments,  to  pro- 
vide for  the  execution  of  the  United  States  laws  in  Michigan.     (Id.  585.) 

*  Moves  to  take  up  the  bill  to  regulate  and  increase  the  pay  of  officers  of 
the  Marine  Corps.  Moves  an  amendment,  which  was  lost,  assimilating  the 
pay  of  marine  officers  to  that  of  officers  of  infantry  of  like  grades,  while 
serving  on  shore,  and  to  that  of  navy  officers,  when  serving  at  sea.  Remarks 
on  the  amendment.  Renews  the  amendment  when  the  bill  is  reported  to  the 
Senate,  and  it  is  agreed  to.     (Id.  585;  id.  1877.) 

June  27. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill,  which  was  vetoed  by  the  President, 
fixing  a  day  for  the  annual  meeting  of  Congress.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836, 
III.  588;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XIL,  pt.  2,  1880.) 

Votes  against  taking  up  the  bill  to  anticipate  the  payment  of  indemnities 
due  to  claimants  under  the  French  and  Neapolitan  treaties.  (Id.  588;  id. 
1882.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  bill  to  establish 
armories,  arsenals,  etc.,  in  certain  places.  Remarks  on  the  bill.  (Id.  589; 
id.  1884.) 

June  28. — Votes  against  a  resolution  for  rescinding  the  resolution  of  the 
Senate  of  March  24,  1834,  censuring  the  President.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836, 
III.  5Qi ;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XIL,  pt.  2,  1897.) 

Votes  against  recommitting,  with  certain  instructions,  the  bill  providing 
for  the  accommodation  of  the  Patent  Office.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill. 
(Id.  591;  id.  1898.) 

June  29. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  recommit  the  Fortifications  Bill  for 
1836,  with  instructions  to  reduce  the  appropriations  to  not  more  than 
$1,600,000.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table.  Votes  against 
a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  without  instructions.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836, 
III.  595;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XIL,  pt.  2,  1906,  1907.) 

June  30. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  establish  armories, 
arsenals,  etc.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  599;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836, 
XIL,  pt.  2,  1909.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session. 
' Printed  herein. 


V     OF  THE  A 

UNIVERSITY  ] 

OF  J 


1  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike  from  the'  Fortifications  Bill  an  appropri- 
ation of  $150,000  for  Fort  Delaware.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  recommit  the 
bill,  with  instructions  to  reduce  the  appropriations.  Votes  in  favor  of 
engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  599;  id.  1910,  191 1.) 

Appointed  a  member  of  the  committee  to  consider  and  report  in  what 
manner  to  express  the  feelings  of  the  nation  on  the  decease  of  James  Madison. 
(Id.  599;  id.  1913.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  supplemental  to  the  act  to  regulate 
the  public  deposits.     (Id.  599;  id.  1913.) 

Moves  to  take  up  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  James  Bradford,  of  Louisiana. 
(Id.  600.) 

*  July  1. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  favoring  the  acknowledgment  of 
Texan  independence.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolution  as  amended.  (G.  24 
C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  604;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1916,  1928.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  making  additional  appropriations  for  the  Delaware 
breakwater  and  for  the  improvement  of  certain  harbors.     (Id.  604;  id.  1928.) 

July  2. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  take  up  the  Pension  Bill.  Suggests 
an  amendment,  which  was  agreed  to,  providing  for  widows  of  Revolutionary 
officers  and  soldiers,  who  were  married  during  the  war  and  who  remained 
widows.  (G.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  608;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII., 
pt.  2,   1929.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  providing  for  the  Delaware 
breakwater  and  for  the  improvement  of  certain  harbors.     (Id.  608;  id.  1930.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Harbor  Bill.  Votes  against  a 
motion  to  postpone  consideration  of  the  bill.  Remarks  on  the  bill.  Votes  in 
favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  609;  id.  1935.) 

July  4. — Moves  that  the  Senate  adjourn  sine  die.  Motion  carried.  (G. 
24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  III.  615;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1835-1836,  XII.,  pt.  2,  1940.) 

December  5. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.  (G.  24  C.  2  s. 
1836-1837,  IV.  1;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII.,  pt.  1,  1.) 

December  12. — Elected  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations, 
receiving  21  votes,  against  14  for  Clay,  1  for  King,  of  Alabama,  and  1  for 
King,  of  Georgia.  (G.  24  C  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  17;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837, 
XIII,  pt.  1,  6,  7.) 

December  14. — Presents  a  petition  of  the  umbrella  manufacturers  of 
Philadelphia  with  regard  to  the  construction  of  tariff  laws  affecting  their 
imports ;  also  a  petition  of  John  Laub,  for  compensation  as  acting  Comptroller 
of  the  Treasury.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  22.) 

Elected  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  the  District  of  Columbia.  (Reg. 
24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1,  7.) 

December  15. — Moves  reference  of  the  petition  of  Charles  Frazier  to  the 
Committee  on  Claims,  which  was  agreed  to.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  26.) 

December  19. — The  Chair  communicates  the  credentials  of  James 
Buchanan,  re-elected,  by  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature,  a  Senator  from  that 
State  for  six  years,  from  March  4,  1837.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  29.) 

Presents  a  petition  for  a  custom-house  at  Philadelphia;  also  a  petition 
for  a  Federal  court-house  at  Philadelphia.     (Id.  29.) 

Moves  that  so  much  of  the  President's  message  as  relates  to  foreign 
relations  be  referred  to  the  Committee.     It  was  so  ordered.     (Id.  30.) 

*  December  21. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  refer  to  the  Committee  on 
Finance  a  bill  relating  to  deposits  of  public  money.  (G.  24  G  2  s.  1836-1837, 
IV.  40,  Appendix,  319-320;  Reg.  24  G  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1,  85-86.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  motion  to  refer  the  bill  to  that  Committee.  (Id.  41 ; 
id.  90.) 


Reg.= Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.- 
=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1837  li 

December  22. — Makes  a  motion,  and  remarks  thereon,  to  refer  to  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  the  message  of  the  President  relative  to  the 
recognition  of  the  independence  of  Texas  and  its  admission  into  the  Union. 
The  motion  was  adopted.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  43;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s. 
1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  104.) 

Reports  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  executrix  of  Richard  W.  Meade. 
(Id.  43.) 

December  26. — Presents  a  petition  for  a  custom-house  at  Philadelphia; 
also  a  memorial  for  the  reduction  of  postage.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837, 
IV.  49.) 

Introduces  a  bill  authorizing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  compromise 
the  claim  of  the  United  States  in  the  Alleghany  Bank  of  Pennsylvania. 
(Id.  Si.) 

Gives  notice  of  a  request,  on  the  next  day,  for  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  for 
the  relief  of  insolvent  debtors.     (Id.  51.) 

December  27. — Introduces  a  bill  to  extend  the  several  acts  in  force  for 
the  relief  of  insolvent  debtors.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  53.) 

*  December  29. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Michigan  into 
the  Union.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  60,  60-61 ;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837, 
XIIL,  pt.  1,  169-170,  171-172.) 

SENATE   (Continued),  1837. 

January  2,  1837. — Presents  the  petition  of  Dr.  Plantou  for  an  appropria- 
tion to  test  his  several  inventions  for  navigation  of  canals  by  steamboats  and 
for  construction  of  railroads;  also  a  petition  for  a  custom-house  at  Philadel- 
phia.    (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1 836-1837,  IV.  66.) 

*  January  3. — Speech  on  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Michigan  into  the 
Union.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  68,  Appendix,  73-76,  84;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s. 
1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  235-246.) 

Votes  against  a  number  t)f  motions  that  the  Senate  adjourn.  (Id.  68; 
id.  267.) 

January  4. — Votes  on  various  motions  on  and  amendments  to  the  bill 
for  the  admission  of  Michigan.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a 
third  reading,  which  was  ordered.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  71;  Reg. 
24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  293,  294,  295.) 

*  January  5. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Michigan  into  the 
Union.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  73,  Appendix,  147-149;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s. 
1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  310-317-) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  73;  id.  325.) 

January  6. — Presents  a  petition  for  the  erection  of  a  federal  court-house 
in  Philadelphia.  Remarks  on  the  subject.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  75; 
Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  325-326.) 

January  9. — Presents  a  petition  for  an  appropriation  for  Alleghany  River 
improvement;  also  a  petition  of  the  Philadelphia  Chamber  of  Commerce  for 
extension  of  time  for  the  production  of  certificates  on  articles  entitled  to 
drawback.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  78.) 

January  10. — Presents  a  memorial  of  claimants  under  the  French  treaty ; 
also  the  petition  of  Moore  &  Co.  for  compensation  for  additional  services 
rendered  as  mail  contractors ;  also  a  memorial  protesting  against  the  reduction 
of  the  duty  on  coal.  Remarks  on  the  last  memorial.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837, 
IV.  81.) 

January  11. — Makes  a  report  on  the  memorial  of  Thomas  Vowell.  (G. 
24  C.  2  s.  1 836-1837,  IV.  83.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.= Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress. 
Printed  herein. 


Hi  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Votes  in  favor  of  referring  to  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  a  resolu- 
tion to  rescind  the  Treasury  order  of  July,  1836,  designating  funds  which 
shall  be  received  in  payment  of  public  lands.  (Id.  83;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836- 
1837,  XIII.,  pt.  1,  376.) 

J miuary  12. — Remarks  on  a  bill  to  limit  the  sales  of  public  lands.  (G.  24 
C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  91-92;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII.,  pt.  1,  378,  379.) 

January  13. — Presents  a  petition  remonstrating  against  the  reduction  of 
the  duty  on  coal.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  94.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  made,  during  discussion  of  the  Expunging  Resolu- 
tion,  for  adjournment.     (Id.  94.) 

January  16. — Presents  a  petition  from  Samuel  Raub,  Jr.,  concerning  his 
improvement  in  the  construction  of  steam-boilers ;  also  a  memorial  from 
hardware  dealers  in  Philadelphia,  asking  the  repeal  of  certain  tariff  provi- 
sions; also  a  memorial  concerning  the  duty  on  coal.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837, 
IV.  98.) 

*  Speech  on  Benton's  resolution  to  expunge  from  the  Senate  journal  the 
resolution  of  March  28,  1834,  censuring  President  Jackson  for  having 
removed  deposits  from  the  Bank  of  the  United  States.  (Id.  98,  Appendix, 
106-111;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII.,  pt.  1,  440-458.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  adjourn,  which  was  lost.     (Id.  98.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  Expunging  Resolution,  which  was  adopted.  (Id. 
99;  id.  504.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  place  before  the  bar  of  the  Senate  a  person 
apprehended  in  the  gallery  for  raising  a  disturbance  while  the  Clerk  expunged 
the  resolution.  The  motion  was  carried.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to 
discharge  the  person,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  99,  100;  id.  506.) 

January  17. — Presents  a  petition.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  102.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  printing  the  usual  number  of  a  presentment  of  the 
grand  jury  of  Washington  County,  D.  C,  with  reference  to  outside  inter- 
ference in  local  affairs,  especially  slavery.     (Id.  102.) 

Moves  to  postpone  till  the  next  day  the  consideration  of  the  bill  to  limit 
the  sales  of  public  lands.     Motion  adopted.     (Id.  102.) 

January  18. — Reports  a  bill  to  continue  in  force,  for  a  limited  time,  the 
act  for  carrying  into  effect  the  convention  between  the  United  States  and 
Spain.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  105.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  to  anticipate  the  payment  of  indemnities  stipulated 
in  the  treaties  with  France  and  the  Two  Sicilies.  (Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837, 
XIII.,  pt.  1,  521-522,  523;  G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  106.)  Votes  in  favor 
of  ordering  the  bill  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  524;  id.  106.) 

January  19. — Presents  the  petition  of  Horatio  N.  Crabb  for  certain 
allowances  of  pay.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  no.) 

January  20. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  take  up  the  bill  designating  and 
limiting  the  funds  receivable  for  the  United  States  revenues.  (G.  24  C.  2  s. 
1836-1837,  IV.  in.) 

Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  a  bill  to  authorize  the  relinquishment  of 
certain  public  lands  for  the  use  of  schools  and  the  entry  of  other  lands  in  lieu 
thereof.     (Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII.,  pt.  1,  529.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  limit  the  sales  of  public  lands, 
prescribing  the  prices  at  which  the  sales  shall  be  made.  Amendment  rejected. 
(Id.  529.) 

January  21. — Votes  for  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  limit  the  sales  of 
public  lands,  making  the  term  of  residence  required  of  a  settler,  before  he 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.— s.=session. 
Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1837  liii 

can  obtain  a  patent,  two  years  instead  of  three.  Amendment  adopted.  (G.  24 
C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  115.) 

January  24. — Presents  a  petition  for  constructing  a  harbor  at  the  mouth 
of  Walnut  Creek,  which  empties  into  Lake  Erie.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837, 
IV.   121.) 

Remarks  on  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  construction  of  the  act  of 
June  30,  1834,  regulating  the  pay  of  the  Marine  Corps,  by  the  Fourth  Auditor. 
(Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  535.) 

January  25. — Introduces  a  bill  to  explain  and  amend  the  5th  section  of 
the  act  of  June  30,  1834,  for  the  better  organization  of  the  United  States 
Marine  Corps.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  123.) 

Participates  in  the  debate  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  executrix  of 
Richard  W.  Meade.     (Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  557.) 

*  January  26. — Submits  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  limit  the  sales  of 
public  lands,  providing  for  the  entry  of  sections  in  the  name  of  certain  minor 
children.  Remarks  on  the  subject.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  126;  Reg. 
24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  559-560,  560-561,  561-562.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  taking  up  the  bill  to  limit  and  designate  the  funds 
receivable  for  the  public  revenue.  Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  that 
notes  of  banks  shall  not  be  received  for  public  dues,  where  such  banks  issue 
notes  of  a  denomination  less  than  twenty  dollars.     (Id.  127;  id.  563.) 

*  January  27. — Remarks  on  a  memorial  for  the  incorporation  of  an  asso- 
ciation for  colonizing  free  negroes  on  the  coast  of  Africa.  (G.  24  C.  2  s. 
1836-1837,  IV.  130,  130-131 ;  Reg.  24  C  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  566,  567, 
568.) 

January  28. — Presents  a  memorial  praying  that  New  Castle  on  the  Dela- 
ware, may  be  made  a  port  of  entry.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  135.) 

Receives  one  vote  on  the  ballot  for  a  President  pro  tern,  of  the  Senate, 
on  the  retirement  of  Vice-President  Martin  Van  Buren.  (Reg.  24  C.  2  s. 
1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  618.) 

January  30. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  take  up  the  memorial  of  the 
American  Colonization  Society,  asking  for  a  charter.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836- 
1837,  IV.  138;  Reg.  24  C.  1  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  636.) 

Remarks  on  the  consideration  of  the  resolution  of  thanks  to  Martin  Van 
Buren,  the  retiring  Vice-President.     (Id.  635.) 

Submits  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  limit  the  sales  of  public  lands. 
Amendment  agreed  to.     (Id.  138;  id.  645.) 

February  1. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  above  bill,  making 
it  retrospective  in  its  character  in  regard  to  pre-emption  settlement.  (G.  24 
C.  2  s.   1836-1837,  IV.   145;   Reg.  24  C.  2  s.   1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.    1,  667.) 

February  2. — Presents  a  petition  protesting  against  the  repeal  of  the 
duties  on  coal;  remarks  on  the  subject.  Presents  the  memorial  of  F. 
Raviesces,  of  Alabama,  complaining  against  two  land  officers.  (G.  24  C.  2  s. 
1836-1837,  IV.  147.) 

Appointed  a  member  of  a  select  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the 
petition  of  T.  Moore  and  other  British  authors  for  copyright  privileges  in 
the  United  States.  (Id.  147;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  671; 
S.  Doc.  134,  24  C.  2  s.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  memorial.     (Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  671.) 
February  3. — Votes  on  various  motions  and  amendments  to  the  bill  to 

limit  the  sales  of  public  lands.     Remarks  on  the  bill.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836- 
1837,  IV.  150;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  693,694,  695,  696.) 

Introduces   a   resolution  to   inquire   into   the   expediency   of   erecting  a 


Reg. = Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session. 
*=Printed  herein. 


liv  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

light-house  on  Sand  Island,  opposite  Mobile  Point,  and  of  placing  buoys  and 
beacons  in  Mobile  Bay.     (Id.  150.) 

February  4. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  as  to  the  mode  of  examining 
and  counting  the  votes  for  President  and  Vice-President.  (G.  24  C.  2  s. 
1836-1837,  IV.  152;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  701.) 

Remarks  on  taking  up  the  bill  to  limit  the  sales  of  public  lands.  (Reg. 
24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  701.)  Calls  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  a 
motion  to  recommit  the  bill;  votes  against  the  motion,  which  was  carried. 
(G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  153;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  706.) 

Remarks  on  a  petition  of  inhabitants  of  Pottsville,  Pa.,  protesting  against 
the  repeal  of  the  duty  on  coal.  (Niles'  Weekly  Register,  Feb.  4,  1837,  LI. 
360.) 

*  February  6. — Remarks  on  the  reception  of  memorials  presented  by  him 
for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836- 
1837,  IV.  158;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  709.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  question  of  the 
reception  of  these  memorials.     The  motion  prevailed.     (Id.  159;  id.  711.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  several  memorials  from 
abolitionists  of  Ohio  and  Massachusetts.  The  motion  prevailed.  (Id.  160; 
id.  723-) 

February  7. — Moves  that  the  President's  message  on  relations  with 
Mexico  be  printed,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  So 
ordered.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  163;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL, 
pt.  1,  724-) 

Presents  the  petition  of  Hannah  Mendenhall  Baldwin,  praying  for  a 
pension.     (Id.  163.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  laying  on  the  table  the  question  of  the  reception  of 
certain  petitions  from  Ohio  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia.     Motion  adopted.     (Id.  163;  id.  724.) 

Presents  the  petition  of  Reuben  James.     (Id.  163.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill  to  limit  the  sales  of  public  lands. 
(G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  164;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1, 
727,  728,  729.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  substitute  for  the  bill,  offered  by  Calhoun.  (Id.  164; 
id.  731.) 

Votes  against  Calhoun's  substitute.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the 
bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  164;  id.  736.) 

February  8. — Votes  for  Richard  M.  Johnson  for  Vice-President.  (G.  24 
C  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  166;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  738.) 

February  9. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  question 
•of  the  reception  of  a  petition  from  Vermont,  praying  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Motion  prevailed.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836- 
1837,  IV.  167;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  739-) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  ordering  to  a  second 
reading  the  bill  to  cede  to  the  new  States  the  public  lands  which  lie  in  them, 
on  certain  conditions.     Motion  prevailed.     (Id.  167;  id.  753.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  limit  the  sales  of  public  lands. 
(Id.  167;  id.  777-) 

February  10. — Reports  the  House  bill  concerning  discriminating  duties  on 
Dutch  and  Belgian  vessels,  with  amendment.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV. 
170.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  designate  and   limit  the 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session. 
*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1837  lv 

funds  receivable  for  public  revenue.    The  bill  was  passed.     (Id.  170;  Reg.  24 
C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII.,  pt.  1,  778.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  Fortifications  Appropria- 
tion Bill.     Motion  lost.     (Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII.,  pt.  1,  779.) 

*  February  11. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  cede  public  lands  to  the  new 
States  in  which  they  lie,  on  certain  conditions.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837, 
IV.  172,  Appendix,  159-160;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII.,  pt.  1,  792-794.) 
Votes  in  favor  of  his  motion,  which  was  carried,  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table. 
(Id.  172;  id.  794-) 

Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  making  provision  for  the  collection  of 
materials  and  the  purchase  of  sites  for  certain  fortifications.     (Id.  172;  id. 

795.) 

February  13. — Presents  the  petition  of  McNair  of  Pittsburg,  mail  con- 
tractor, for  compensation  for  extra  services.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  175.) 

Moves  that  2,000  extra  copies  of  the  President's  message  on  relations 
with  Mexico  be  printed.     Motion  carried.     (Id.  175.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  4th  section  of  the  bill 
supplementary  to  the  act  for  the  improvement  of  the  useful  arts,  which 
provides  for  the  restoration  of  models  destroyed  by  the  burning  of  the 
Post  Office.     (Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII.,  pt.  1,  797.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  consider  the  resolution  relative  to  acknowl- 
edging the  independence  of  Texas.     (Id.    175;   Reg.  24   C.   2   s.   1836-1837, 

XIII,  pt.  1,  797.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  to  establish  an 
armory,  arsenals,  and  depots  in  certain  localities.  So  ordered.  (Id.  176;  id. 
800.) 

Moves  consideration  of  the  House  bill  respecting  the  duties  on  Belgian 
and  Dutch  vessels  and  their  cargoes.    Motion  carried.     (Id.  176;  id.  800-801.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill.     (Id.  176;  id.  801.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  to  amend  the  act  for  the  punishment  of  certain 
crimes  against  the  United  States.  Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  substi- 
tuting confinement  at  hard  labor  for  a  term  instead  of  the  death  penalty 
for  the  crime  of  burning  public  buildings.  Amendment  lost.  Moves  an 
amendment  by  substituting  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  for  the  punish- 
ment of  death  in  case  of  accessaries  before  the  fact.  Amendment  rejected. 
Votes  against  ordering  the  bill  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading,  which 
was  ordered.     (Id.  176;  id.  801-802.) 

February  15. — Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  amend  the  act  of 
1790  for  the  punishment  of  certain  crimes  against  the  United  States.  (G.  24 
C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  184;  Reg.  24  C  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1,  805.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  respecting  the  discriminating  duties  on  Dutch  and 
Belgian  vessels  and  their  cargoes.  (Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1, 
805-806.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  continuation  of  the 
Cumberland  Road,  by  inserting  a  disclaimer  of  the  faith  of  the  Government 
being  pledged  to  further  appropriations.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the 
bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was  ordered.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV. 
184;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1,  807.) 

February  16. — Report  of  the  select  committee  on  the  petitions  of  British 
and  American  authors  regarding  the  extension  of  copyright  to  foreigners. 
(S.  Doc.  179,  24  C.2S.;  G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  188.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  increasing  the  military  estab- 


Reg.= Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress. 
*=Printed  herein. 


lvi  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

lishment  of  the  United  States.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  188;  Reg.  24  C. 
2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII.,  pt.  1,  840.) 

February  17. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  settle  the 
claims  of  the  executrix  of  Richard  W.  Meade.  Votes  in  favor  of  the 
passage  of  the  bill,  which  was  passed.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837;  Reg.  24  C. 
2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1,  846.) 

*  February  18. — Report  on  President  Jackson's  message  of  Feb.  6,  1837, 
recommending  that  the  Senate  concur  in  the  President's  opinion  that  another 
demand  ought  to  be  made  upon  Mexico  for  redress  of  the  United  States' 
grievances.  (S.  Doc.  189,  24  C.  2  s. ;  G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  193-194; 
Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1,  854-857.) 

February  20. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  for  the  purchase  of  the 
manuscripts  of  James  Madison.  Resolution  adopted.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836- 
1837,  IV.  195;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1,  872.) 

February  21. — Gives  notice  that  he  would,  on  the  following  Thursday, 
call  for  the  consideration  of  the  report  on  relations  with  Mexico.  (G.  24  C. 
2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1,  195.) 

Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  a  bill  to  complete  a  certain  military  road  in 
Arkansas.     (Id.  195.) 

*  Remarks  on  instructions  from  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature  to  oppose 
tariff  reduction.  (Id.  195;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1,  873.)  Votes 
against  a  motion  to  take  up  the  bill  reducing  the  duties  on  certain  imported 
articles.  (Id.  195;  id.  874.)  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  strike  out  from 
the  bill  twelve  articles  of  drugs.  Motion  prevailed.  Speaks  and  votes  in 
favor  of  an  amendment  to  strike  out  the  articles  of  china  and  porcelain, 
earthen,  and  stone  ware.     (Id.  195;  id.  874,  880,  884.) 

*  February  24. — Votes  and  makes  remarks  on  various  motions  and 
amendments  to  the  above  bill.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  201,  Appendix, 
202,  239-241 ;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1,  939,  948-953,  961-962, 
965,  966;  pt.  2,  2200.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.  (Id.  201,  202; 
id.  966.) 

February  27. — Presents  petitions  from  Pennsylvania  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  209) 

*  Moves  to  take  up  the  report  on  relations  with  Mexico,  and  the 
resolution  accompanying  it.  Remarks  on  the  subject.  Votes  in  favor  of  the 
resolution,  which  was  adopted  unanimously.  (Id.  209,  210;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s. 
1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1,  985.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  resolu- 
tion for  the  recognition  of  Texan  independence.      (Id.  210;  id.  986.) 

Moves  to  table  the  bill  to  remunerate  Captain  Francis  Allyn  for  con- 
veying General  Lafayette  to  the  United  States  in  1824.  Motion  prevailed. 
(Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1,  988.) 

Moves  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Colonel  Matthew 
Arbuckle,  requiring  him  to  pay  $1.25  per  acre  to  the  United  States  for  the 
lands  in  question.     Amendment  agreed  to.     (Id.   991.) 

*  February  28. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  strike  from  the  Fortifications 
Bill  the  section  providing  for  the  distribution  among  the  States  of  any 
surplus  which  may  remain  in  the  Treasury  on  January  1,  1838.  (G.  24  C.  2  s 
1836-1837,  IV.  212,  Appendix,  271-273;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIII,  pt.  1, 
993-996,  1 003-1007.)  Votes  in  favor  of  the  motion,  which  prevailed.  (Id. 
212.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  anticipating  the 


Reg.= Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress. 
*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1837  lvii 

payment  of  the  indemnities  to  United  States  citizens  under  the  convention 
with  France  of  July  4,  1831,  and  that  with  the  Two  Sicilies  of  October  14, 
1832.     (Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  1009.) 

*  March  I. — Remarks  on  the  resolution  for  the  recognition  of  Texan 
independence.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  214;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837, 
XIIL,  pt.  i,  1012-1013.)  Moves  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table,  which 
motion  was  negatived.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  proposed  substitute,  declaring 
that  when  satisfactory  information  should  be  received  of  the  successful 
operation  of  a  government,  "  it  will  be  expedient "  to  acknowledge  Texan 
independence.  Substitute  rejected.  Votes  against  the  original  resolution, 
which  was  adopted.     (Id.  214;  id.  1013.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  bill  making  appropriations  for  certain 
harbors  and  rivers,  which  provided  for  the  relief  of  Alexandria.  Votes  for 
the  amendment,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  214;  id.  1014.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  General  Appropriation  Bill, 
appropriating  $30,000  for  the  manuscripts  of  James  Madison.  Amendment 
agreed  to.     (Id.  214;  id.  1015.) 

Moves  an  amendment  appropriating  $8,000  for  statuary  for  the  Capitol, 
without  naming  an  artist.     Amendment  agreed  to.     (Id.  214;  id.  1015.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment,  which  was  rejected,  to  strike  out  of  the 
appropriation  for  the  contingent  appointment  of  a  diplomatic  agent  to  Texas 
the  provision  for  satisfactory  evidence  that  Texas  is  independent.  (Reg.  24 
C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  1016.) 

March  2. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill  making  appropriations  for  certain 
harbors  and  rivers.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  216;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836- 
1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  1018.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  strike  from  the  bill  for  the  repair  and 
construction  of  certain  roads,  including  the  Cumberland  Road,  the  section 
which  provided  for  repayment  of  the  appropriation  for  the  road  out  of  the 
two  per  cent.  fund.     (Id.  216;  id.  1019.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  motion  to  reconsider  the 
vote  by  which  the  resolution  relative  to  recognizing  Texan  independence 
was  adopted.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  reconsider.  Motion  lost.  (Id. 
216;  id.  1019.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  insist  on  the  amendment  of  the  Senate  in 
striking  out  the  section  of  the  Fortifications  Bill  providing  for  the  distribution 
of  the  surplus  revenue  among  the  States.  (Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1 836-1837,  XIIL, 
pt.  1,  1020.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  to  aid  the  Falmouth  and  Alexandria  Railroad  Company 
to  construct  their  road  within  the  District  of  Columbia.  Votes  against 
engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was  ordered.  (Id.  102 1 ; 
G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  IV.  216.) 

March  3. — Votes  against  a  resolution  authorizing  the  purchase  of  certain 
books  for  the  several  committee-rooms  of  the  Senate.  (G.  24  C.  2  s.  1836- 
1837,  IV.  219.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  adhering  to  the  Senate  disagreement  with  the  House 
in  striking  out  the  section  of  the  Fortifications  Bill  providing  for  the  distribu- 
tion of  surplus  revenue.  (Id.  219;  Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1, 
1034.) 

Remarks  on  the  question  of  printing  a  memorial  from  the  Cherokee 
Indians.     (Id.  219;  id.  1035.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  agreeing  to  a  report  from  the  Judiciary  Committee 
that  Ambrose  H.  Sevier  is  entitled  to  a  seat  as  a  Senator  from  Arkansas. 
(Reg.  24  C.  2  s.  1836-1837,  XIIL,  pt.  1,  1036.) 


Reg.=Register  of  Debates.— G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress. 
♦—Printed  herein. 


lviii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

September  4. — Moves  that  the  Senate  adjourn,  which  was  agreed  to. 
(G.  25  C  1  s.  1837,  V.  1.) 

September  5. — Remarks  on  the  number  of  copies  to  be  printed  of  the 
President's  message.     (G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  10.) 

September  7. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  construction  of  a  turnpike 
road  from  the  Cumberland  Road  to  Lake  Erie.  Remarks  on  the  memorial. 
Also  presents  a  petition  from  Alleghany  College  for  a  grant  of  land.  (G.  25 
C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  14.) 

September  11. — Remarks  on  the  course  of  Senate  business  with  reference 
to  the  presentation  of  petitions.     (G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  18.) 

September  12. — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
(G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  21.) 

Remarks  on  considering  a  resolution  concerning  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
U.  S.  District  Court  for  the  Northern  District  of  Alabama.     (Id.  21.) 

Moves  the  consideration  of  executive  business,  which  was  agreed  to. 
(Id.  21.) 

September  14. — Presents  remonstrances  against  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
(G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  26.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  to  postpone  the  payment  of  the  fourth  instalment 
of  the  deposits  with  the  States.     (Id.  30,  Appendix,  13-14.) 

Moves  an  amendment  to  the  bill  that  the  first  three  instalments  shall 
remain  on  deposit  with  the  States  until  otherwise  directed  by  Congress.  The 
amendment  was  adopted.  Votes  against  a  proposed  substitute.  Votes  in 
favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  30.) 

September  15. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  postpone  the 
payment  of  the  fourth  instalment  of  the  deposits  with  the  States.  (G.  25  C. 
1  s.  1837,  V.  32.) 

September  16. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  authorizing 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  issue  Treasury  notes.  (G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837, 
V.  36.) 

September  18. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  above  bill  for  a  third 
reading.     (G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  38.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  authorizing  the  deposit  of  merchandise  in  the  public 
stores.     (Niles'  Register,  Sept.  23,  1837,  LIII.  59;  G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  38.) 

September  2S- — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
(G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  67.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  imposing  certain  duties  on 
public  officers  as  depositories  in  certain  cases.     (Id.  68.) 

September  26. — Moves  that  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  be  dis- 
charged from  consideration  of  a  memorial  from  certain  insurance  officers 
for  indemnity  for  a  vessel  destroyed  in  1800.  Remarks.  The  motion  was 
agreed  to.     (G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  73.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  resolution  reported  by  the 
Committee  on  Finance  in  favor  of  granting  the  petition  for  a  national  bank. 
(Id.  73.)  Votes  on  various  amendments.  (Id.  74,  75,  76.)  Votes  in  favor 
of  the  resolution  as  reported.     (Id.  76.) 

September  27. — Remarks  on  a  suggested  adjournment,  during  considera- 
tion of  the  bill  imposing  certain  duties  on  public  officers  as  depositories. 
(G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  80.) 

September  28— Gives  notice  of  an  intention  to  address  the  Senate  on  the 
bill  imposing  certain  duties  on  public  officers  as  depositories,  but  moves  an 
adjournment,  which  was  agreed  to.     (G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  83.) 

*  September  29.— Speech  on  the  above  bill.  (G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  85, 
Appendix,  94-103.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress. — s.=session. — *— Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1837  lix 

September  30. — Presents  memorials  against  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
(G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  91.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  concurring  in  the  House  amendment  to  the  bill  to 
postpone  the  fourth  instalment  of  deposits  with  the  States.     (Id.  92.) 

October  2. — Moves  to  postpone  consideration  of  the  bill  to  regulate  the 
fees  of  United  States  district  attorneys  in  certain  cases,  which  was  agreed  to. 
(G.  25  C  1  s.  1837,  V.  94.) 

Remarks  on  a  resolution  as  to  the  day  of  adjournment.     (Id.  94.) 

*  October  3. — Remarks  on  the  bill  imposing  certain  duties  on  public 
officers  as  depositories.  Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill.  Votes 
in  favor  of  engrossing  it  for  a  third  reading,  which  was  ordered.  (G.  25  C. 
1  s.  1837,  V.  96.) 

*  October  4. — Remarks  on  the  bill  regulating  the  fees  of  United  States 
district  attorneys  in  the  renewal  of  merchants'  bonds.  (G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837, 
V.  100.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  imposing  additional  duties  on 
public  officers  as  depositories   in  certain  cases.     (Id.    100,   Appendix,    in.) 

*  October  9. — Adoption  of  his  amendment  to  the  bill  regulating  the  fees 
of  district  attorneys  in  the  renewal  of  merchants'  bonds,  allowing  $4  for  all 
bonds  exceeding  $500  and  $2  for  all  bonds  of  and  under  that  sum.  (G.  25 
C  1  s.  1837,  V.  115.) 

Remarks  on  Clay's  amendment  to  the  bill,  placing  the  cases  of  extension 
of  bonds  given  for  duties  on  imports  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  the  charges  to  be  the  same  as  those  receivable  on  taking  an 
original  bond.  Votes  against  the  amendment,  which  was  agreed  to.  Speaks 
on  the  bill,  and  moves  recommitment  with  instructions  to  provide  reasonable 
compensation  to  district  attorneys  for  services  already  rendered  in  extending 
bonds.     Motion  lost.     (Id.  116.) 

Moves  amendment  to  the  bill  authorizing  merchandise  to  be  deposited 
in  the  public  stores,  with  reference  to  imported  railroad  iron.  Amendment 
agreed  to.     (Id.  116.) 

October  10. — Presents  memorials  against  the  annexation  of  Texas.  (G. 
25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  120.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  authorizing  the  deposit  of 
merchandise  in  warehouses.  Motion  lost.  Votes  against  a  proposal  making 
it  optional,  until  July  1,  1842,  for  an  importer  in  certain  cases  to  place 
dutiable  goods  in  store  or  to  give  bonds  for  the  duties.     (Id.   121.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  authorize  the  issue  of 
Treasury  notes,  making  $100  the  minimum.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage 
of  the  bill.     (Id.  121.) 

Moves  that  the  Senate  proceed  with  executive  business,  which  was 
agreed  to.     (Id.  121.) 

*  October  11. — Remarks  on  the  bill  authorizing  the  deposit  of  mer- 
chandise in  public  warehouses.  (G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  123,  124.)  Votes 
against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill 
for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  124.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  revoking  the  charters  of  certain  banks  in  the 
District  of  Columbia,  and  for  the  suppression  of  small  notes  therein.  (Id. 
125.) 

October  14. — Presents  petitions  against  the  admission  into  the  Union  of 
any  new  State  that  permits  slavery;  also  memorials  against  the  admission 
of  Texas.     (G.  25  C.  1  s.  1837,  V.  138.) 

Remarks  on  the  question  of  reading  for  a  second  and  third  time  and 
passing  the  House  bill  for  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities  in  Florida. 
(Id.  139.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress.— s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


lx  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Remarks  on  the  House  amendments  to  the  bill  for  adjusting  the  claims 
of  the  Government  on  the  late  deposit  banks,  extending  the  time  for  the 
first,  second,  and  third  payments.     (Id.  139,  140.) 

December  4. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.  (G.  25  C.  2  s. 
1837-1838,  VI.  1.) 

December  6. — Remarks  on  a  motion  that  the  Chair  appoint  the  standing 
committees.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  9.) 

Gives  notice  that  he  will,  on  the  next  day,  introduce  a  bill  to  explain  and 
amend  the  5th  section  of  the  act  of  June  30,  1834,  for  the  better  organization 
of  the  United  States  Marine  Corps.     (Id.  9.) 

December  7. — On  the  announcement  of  the  standing  committees,  appears 
as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  and  as  a  member  of  the 
Committee  on  Manufactures.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  15;  S.  Doc.  4,  25 
C.  2  s.) 

Presents  the  petition  of  the  Union  Bank  of  Georgetown  for  an  extension 
of  charter  to  wind  up  its  affairs ;  also  a  memorial  from  Richard  W.  Harrison 
for  remuneration   for  moneys   expended   for  the  United   States.     (Id.    15.) 

Introduces  a  bill  amending  the  act  of  June  30,  1834,  for  the  better 
organization  of  the  Marine  Corps.     (Id.  15.) 

*  December  14. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  to  rescind  the  Expunging  Reso- 
lution.    (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  27.) 

December  18. — Presents  a  number  of  resolutions  relating  to  the  paper 
currency,  to  a  new  custom-house  at  Philadelphia,  to  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  to  a  grant  of  land  to  the  Alleghany  College,  and  to  the  Erie  Road. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  33-) 

*  Remarks  on  petitions  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia.     (Id.  38-39.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  the  petitions  on  the  table.     (Id.  39.) 
December  21. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  to  restrain 

the  issue  of  small  notes  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.   1837- 

1838,  VI.  45-) 

December  22. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  commit  the  bill  to  restrain  the 

issue   of   small   notes   in  the   District   of   Columbia.     Votes   in    favor   of   an 

amendment.     Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (G. 

25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  50.) 

*  December  26. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  restrain  the  issue  of  small  notes 
in  the  District  of  Columbia.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  51-52.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  authorizing  the  States  to  tax  lands  sold  by  the 
United  States.     (Id.,  Appendix,  17.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  restrain  the  issue  of  small 
notes  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     (Id.  54.) 

December  27. — Participates  in  a  debate  on  the  bill  authorizing  the  States 
to  tax  certain  lands.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third 
reading.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  55.) 

December  28. — Presents  the  petition  of  the  Union  Bank  of  Georgetown 
to  be  reimbursed  for  certain  losses.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  58.) 

Appointed  a  member  of  a  select  committee  on  the  resolution  to  amend 
the  Constitution.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  63.) 

December  29. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  relating  to 
the  punishment  of  crimes  against  the  United  States,  substituting  for  the 
penalty  of  "  death  "  that  of  "  imprisonment  at  hard  labor,"  for  the  crime  of 
burning  public  buildings  or  documents.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  67.) 

Remarks  on  the  claim  of  the  executrix  of  Richard  W.  Meade.  (Niles' 
Register,  Jan.  6,  1838,  LIII.  291-292.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.= Congress. — s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1838  lxi 

SENATE  (Continued),  1838. 

January  2,  1838. — Presents  the  memorial  of  B.  H.  Lubitsh-Klimkiewitch 
for  relief.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  70.) 

*  Presents  and  comments  upon  a  memorial  from  Philadelphia  citizens, 
relative  to  the  discharge  of  mechanics  from  the  Philadelphia  Navy-yard. 
(Id.  70;  Niles'  Register,  Jan.  6,  1838,  LIII.  292.) 

Presents  memorials  against  the  annexation  of  Texas,  on  the  subject 
of  abolition,  for  the  alteration  of  certain  post  routes,  and  for  a  dry-dock  at 
Philadelphia.     (Id.  70.) 

January  3. — Presents  petitions  for  a  monument  to  General  Washington, 
for  the  abolition  of  duties  on  flour,  and  against  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  73.) 

Remarks  and  votes  on  Calhoun's  resolutions  on  the  slavery  question. 
(Id.  74-) 

January  4. — Moves  the  adjournment  of  the  Senate,  which  was  agreed  to. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  76.) 

*  Remarks  during  the  discussion  of  Calhoun's  resolutions  against  inter- 
meddling with  slavery.     (Id.,  Appendix,  23.) 

January  5. — Presents  the  petition  of  James  Miller,  to  be  indemnified  for 
the  loss  of  his  plantation  in  the   Florida  War.     (G.   25   C   2   s.    1837-1838, 

VI.  79.) 

Moves  to  lay  over  for  a'  day  a  report  against  the  petition  of  the  Union 
Bank  of  Georgetown  for  reimbursement  for  certain  losses.     (Id.  80.) 

Votes  for  a  substitute  for  the  proviso  in  Calhoun's  third  resolution  on 
slavery,  the  substitute  requiring  that  the  resolution  should  not  so  be  con- 
strued as  to  impair  the  freedom  of  speech  or  of  the  press  or  the  right  of 
petition.  The  substitute  was  adopted.  (Id.  80,  Appendix,  25.)  Remarks 
on  Calhoun's  resolutions.     (Id.,  Appendix,  30-31.) 

January  6. — Gives  notice  that  he  will,  on  the  Monday  following,  intro- 
duce a  bill  to  repeal  the  duties  on  certain  imports.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838, 
VI.  80.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  third  resolution  of  Calhoun  on 
slavery,  concerning  the  right  of  free  speech  and  of  the  liberty  of  the  press. 
(Id.  80.)  Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  third  resolution.  (Id.  81.) 
Votes  in  favor  of  adopting  the  third  resolution.     (Id.  81.) 

January  9. — Presents  petitions  relating  to  various  subjects.  (G.  25  C.  2  s. 
1837-1838,  VI.  87.) 

*  Reports  a  bill,  and  speaks  thereon,  to  enforce  the  laws  relating  to 
neutrality.     (Id.  88.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  adopting  Calhoun's  fourth  resolution  as  modified.  (Id. 
88,  Appendix,  53.) 

Introduces  a  bill  to  repeal  certain  portions  of  the  act  of  July,  1832, 
relating  to  duties  on  imports.     (Niles'  Register,  Jan.   13,   1838,  LIII.  307.) 

January  10. — Presents  the  petition  of  Edward  H.  Clarke  for  compensa- 
tion for  the  services  of  George  Clarke.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  91.) 

*  Remarks  on  Calhoun's  resolutions  against  intermeddling  with  slavery. 
(Id.  91,  Appendix,  61,  62,  63,  64,  65.)  Votes  in  favor  of  a  substitute  for  the 
fifth  resolution,  in  relation  to  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  (Id.,  Ap- 
pendix, 62.)  Moves  to  strike  out  that  part  of  the  resolution  relating  to 
Florida  and  the  Indian  territory.     Motion  adopted.     (Id.  63.) 

January  11. — Presents  petitions.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,^1.  96.) 

*  Remarks  on  Calhoun's  resolutions  as  to  slavery.  Votes  for  an  amend- 
ment to  the  resolution,  affecting  territories.     Votes  against  a  substitute  reso- 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*--=  Printed  herein. 


lxii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

lution.  Votes  in  favor  of  adopting  the  resolution  as  modified.  (Id.  96-97, 
Appendix,  69,  70,  72,  73,  73-74.) 

January  12. — Presents  a  petition  for  establishing  New  Castle  as  a  poit 
of  entry.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  98.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  sixth  resolution  of 
Calhoun  on  slavery.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  resolu- 
tion with  certain  proposed  amendments  as  to  freedom  of  speech  and  liberty 
of  the  press.     (Id.  98.) 

January  15. — Presents  a  petition  against  an  international  copyright  bill. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  102.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  amendment  of  the  neutrality  laws.     (Id.    103-104.) 
January  16. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  question  of 

the  reception  of  resolutions  of  the  Vermont  Legislature  for  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     (G.  25  C  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  112.) 

Moves  to  take  up  the  bill  amending  the  neutrality  laws,  which  motion 
was  lost.     (Id.  112.) 

January  17. — Moves  to  take  up  the  bill  amending  the  neutrality  laws, 
which  was  agreed  to.  Remarks  on  the  subject.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838, 
VI.  118.) 

January  18. — Moves  to  lay  on  the  table  and  to  order  to  be  printed  a 
report  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  as  to  the  amount  of  specie 
received  at  the  Treasury,  which  motion  was  agreed  to.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837- 
1838,  VI.  119.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  motion  to  reconsider 
the  vote  making  the  Sub-Treasury  Bill  the  order  of  the  day  for  Tuesday 
fortnight.     Votes  against  the  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote.     (Id.  120.) 

January  19. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  completion  of  the  frigate 
Raritan.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  121.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  executrix  of  Richard  W.  Meade. 
Votes  against  a  motion  to  recommit.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill,  which  was 
passed.     (Id.  121.) 

January  22. — Presents  the  petitions  of  Robert  Milnor  and  John  Thomp- 
son for  remuneration  for  certain  services.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  123.) 

*  Reports  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  General  Thomas  Sumpter.  (Id.  123; 
S.  Doc.  123,  25  C.  2  s.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  regulation  of  steamboats, 
prohibiting  racing.     (Id.   125.) 

January  23. — Moves  postponement  of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  T.  L.  Win- 
throp  and  others,  of  the  New  England  Mississippi  Land  Company,  which 
was  agreed  to.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  VI.  130.) 

*  January  24. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  to  increase 
the  present  military  establishment,  with  instructions  to  increase  regiments 
to  three  and  fill  up  companies  to  sixty-eight.  Remarks  on  the  bill.  (G.  25  C. 
2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  133- ) 

January  25. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  adjourn.  Votes  on  various 
amendments  to  the  bill  granting  the  right  of  pre-emption  to  actual  settlers  on 
the  public  lands.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.   1837-1838,  VI.   137,   138.) 

January  26. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  granting  the  right  of 
pre-emption  to  actual  settlers.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone.  (G.  25 
C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  144) 

*  January  27. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  grant  the  right  of  pre-emption 
to  settlers  on  the  public  lands.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.,  Appendix,  131, 
132.)     Votes  on  various  amendments.     Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress. — s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1838         lxiii 

for  a  third  reading.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.,  Appendix,  56,  57,  131, 

132,  133,  I3S-)  ,    .  r     ,  .       . 

January  29. — Presents  a  petition  for  the  abolition  -of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  147.) 

January  30. — Presents  several  memorials  for  an  appropriation  for  the 
completion  of  the  Raritan.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  148.) 

*  Remarks   on   the   bill    to   increase   the   present    military   establishment. 

(Id.  149.)  ,  e    f  . 

Participates  in  the  debate  on  a  bill  providing  for  the  settlement  of  claims 
to  land  derived  from  certain  grants  in  Louisiana  and  Arkansas.  Votes  for 
the  bill,  which  was  passed.     (Id.  149.) 

Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  grant  pre-emption  rights  to 
settlers  on  the  public  lands.     (Id.  149,  Appendix,  143.) 

February  1. — Presents  the  petition  of  Major  R.  L.  Baker  for  brevet  pay; 
also  memorials  protesting  against  the  passage  of  an  international  copyright 
law.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  1 53-) 

Votes  for  a  motion  to  amend  the  bill  to  impose  additional  duties  upon 
certain  officers  as  depositories.  (Id.  153.)  Votes  for  a  provision  of  $3,000 
for  the  salary  of  the  Receiver-General  at  New  York.     Agreed  to.     (Id.  154.) 

February  2. — Presents  the  petition  of  Colonel  S.  Miller  for  compensa- 
tion for  certain  property  and  for  certain  services.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838, 

vi.  155-156.) 

Remarks  in  opposition  to  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Thomas  L.  Winthrop  and 
others.     (Id.  156.) 

February  5. — Presents  eight  memorials  for  a  marine  hospital  at  Pitts- 
burg.    (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  160.) 

February  6. — Presents  memorials  for  a  marine  hospital  at  Pittsburg. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  164.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  motion  to  refer  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  on  the  amount  of  public  moneys  in  the  Commonwealth  Bank  at 
Boston.     (Id.  166.) 

February  7. — Presents  petitions  on  claims.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI. 
168.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  establishment  of  Oregon  Territory.  (Id. 
169.) 

*  February  12. — Remarks  on  a  national  foundry  for  Maryland.  (G.  25 
C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  177- ) 

Presents  a  memorial  for  the  establishment  of  a  marine  hospital  at 
Pittsburg;  also  memorials  from  certain  army  officers  for  grant  of  lands. 
(Id.  177-178.) 

February  14. — Introduces  a  bill  for  regulating  processes  in  the  United 
States  courts  and  providing  for  compensation  of  court  officers,  jurors,  and 
witnesses.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  183.) 

*  February  19. — Remarks  on  instructions  of  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature 
to  vote  against  the  Sub-Treasury  Bill.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  190-191.) 

February  20. — Presents  petitions  for  a  marine  hospital  at  Pittsburg;  also 
a  petition  for  the  completion  of  the  Raritan.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI. 
192.) 

*  Remarks  on  instructions  of  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature  to  vote  against 
the  Sub-Treasury  Bill.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  192.) 

February  21. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  bill  for 
the  continuation  of  the  Cumberland  Road  in  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Mississippi. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  195- ) 


G.= Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=  Printed  herein. 


lxiv  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

February  26. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  dry-dock  at  Philadelphia.  (G. 
25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  199.) 

*  February  28. — Remarks  on  resolutions  of  the  Democratic  delegation  of 
Philadelphia  County,  Pennsylvania,  concerning  the  Sub-Treasury  Bill.  (G. 
25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  202.) 

*  March  I. — Remarks  on  a  memorial  from  delegates  to  a  convention  in 
Philadelphia  to  reform  the  Pennsylvania  State  constitution,  concerning  the 
Sub-Treasury  Bill.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  204.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  memorial  for  the  establishment  of  marine  hospitals  at 
Pittsburg  and  Erie.     (Id.  204.) 

Remarks  on  the  subject  of  brevet  pay,  with  reference  to  the  bill  for  the 
relief  of  Major-General  Alexander  Macomb.     (Id.  204.) 

March  2. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  completion  of  the  frigate 
Raritan.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.   1 837-1 838,  VI.  206.) 

March  3. — Presents  the  petition  of  Isabella  Truxton,  widow  of  Lieutenant 
Payne,  for  a  pension.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  208.) 

March  5. — Presents  the  petition  of  Captain  Britton  Evans  for  reimburse- 
ment for  the  loss  of  certain  property.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  214.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  to  amend  the  neutrality  laws.     (Id.  214-215,  216.) 
Participates    in   the   debate    on    a   bill    to   establish   a    surveyor-general's 

office  in  Illinois.     (Id.  216.) 

March  6. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike  from  the  bill  to  establish  a 
surveyor-general's  office  in  Illinois  the  salary  of  $2,000  and  insert  $1,200, 
which  was  agreed  to.  Votes  for  a  motion  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table,  which 
was  agreed  to.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  223.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  to  amend  the  neutrality  laws.     (Id.  223.) 

*  Remarks   on   the    Independent   Treasury    Bill.     (Id.   223.) 

*  March  7. — Remarks  on  the  presentation  of  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting 
of  Democrats  of  Philadelphia  opposed  to  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill.  (G. 
25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  225.) 

Votes  on  his  motion  to  postpone  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill  and 
amendment;   the   motion   was   lost.     (Id.   227.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill.     (Id.  228-230.) 

*  March  8. — Report  of  the  conference  on  the  amendment  of  the  bill  to 
amend  the  neutrality  laws.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  260.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill,  providing 
for  the  employment  of  twenty-five  banks  whose  stock  is  owned  in  whole  or 
in  part  by  the  State  in  which  they  are  established.     (Id.  241.) 

*  March  9. — Remarks  on  memorials  presented  by  him  for  the  establish- 
ment of  a  naval  dry-dock  at  Philadelphia.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  231.) 

March  10. — Presents  a  petition,  and  speaks  thereon,  on  the  subject  of  the 
currency.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  232.) 

March  12. — Presents  a  memorial  to  suppress  duelling.  (G.  25  C.  2  s. 
1837-1838,  VI.  235.) 

March  14. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  dry-dock  at  Philadelphia.  (G.  25 
C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  239-) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  a  bill  making  appropriations  for 
certain  roads  in  Wisconsin.  (Id.  239.)  Moves  that  consideration  of  the  bill 
be  passed  over  informally,  for  the  purpose  of  considering  the  Independent 
Treasury  Bill,  which  was  agreed  to.      (Id.  239.) 

*  March  15. — Presents  and  comments  upon  the  proceedings  of  a  Demo- 
cratic meeting  at  Philadelphia  in  support  of  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  240.) 

Presents  a  memorial  for  a  dry-dock  at  Philadelphia.     (Id.  241.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1838  lxv 

March  19. — Presents  a  petition  for  suitable  accommodations  for  the 
United  States  courts  in  Philadelphia ;  also  a  memorial  against  an  international 
copyright  bill.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  245.) 

March  20. — Presents  memorials  of  the  heirs  of  Thomas  Lucas,  praying 
for  commutation.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  247.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  laying  on  the  table  a  resolution  relative  to  the  transfer 
of  slaves  from  the  United  States  to  Texas.     Motion  carried.     (Id.  247.) 

March  21. — Presents  a  petition  protesting  against  the  annexation  of 
Texas ;  also  a  petition  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  250.) 

Remarks  on  the  printing  of  a  report  and  accompanying  documents  in 
relation  to  the  introduction  of  the  cultivation  of  tropical  plants  in  Florida. 
(Id.  250.) 

Moves  to  pass  over  informally  the  bill  to  change  the  times  of  holding  the 
courts  of  the  United  States  in  the  Ninth  Circuit,  which  was  agreed  to.  (Id. 
250.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill.  (Id. 
250,  251.) 

March  23. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  suppression  of  duelling;  also  a 
memorial  of  John  P.  Van  Ness,  President  of  the  Metropolis  Bank,  concerning 
a  mistake  in  correspondence  transmitted  to  the  Senate,  between  the  bank 
and  certain  public  departments.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  256.) 

March  24. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Independent  Treasury 
Bill.  Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was 
ordered.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  259.) 

March  26. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  suppression  of  duelling;  also  a 
memorial  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  (G.  25  C. 
2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  262.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  laying  on  the  table  the  subject  of  certain  memorials 
concerning  the  Cherokee  treaty.     (Id.  264.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill. 
Votes  against  the  bill,  which  was  passed.     (Id.  264.) 

March  27. — Remarks  on  the  subject  of  a  memorial  from  Virginia  relating 
to  the  exaction  of  specie  payment.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  268.) 

Moves  that  the  Secretary  of  War  inform  the  Senate  what  portions  of 
the  estimates  for  the  Cumberland  Road  might  be  dispensed  with,  which  was 
agreed  to.     (Id.  269.) 

March  28. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  suppression  of  duelling;  also  a 
petition  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  (G.  25  C.  2 
s.  1837-1838,  VI.  271.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  memorial  concerning  the  affair  of  the  Caroline.  (Id. 
271.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  postponement  of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  William  R. 
Taylor.     (Id.  272.) 

March  29. — Presents  a  petition  for  the  suppression  of  duelling.  (G.  25 
C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  274-) 

Moves  the  reference  of  a  petition  previously  presented  by  him  on  the 
subject  of  international  copyright  to  the  Committee  on  Patents,  which  was 
agreed  to.     (Id.  274.) 

April  9. — Presents  a  petition  on  the  subject  of  duelling.  (G.  25  C.  2  s. 
1837-1838,  VI.  292.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  to  prohibit  the  giving  or  accepting 
of  a  challenge  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     The  bill  was  passed.     (Id.  292.) 

Makes  and  speaks  upon  a  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  concerning  the  act 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congjess.— s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 
V 


lxvi  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

to  establish  the  northern  boundary  of  Ohio  and  to  provide  for  the  admission 
of  Michigan.     (Id.  295.) 

April  10. — Presents  a  petition  against  the  passage  of  the  international 
copyright  bill;  also  a  petition  on  the  subject  of  duelling.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837- 
1838,  VI.  296.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  bill  for  the 
relief  of  Bolitha  Laws.     (Id.  296.) 

*  April  11. — Remarks  on  relations  with  Mexico.  (G.  25  G  2  s.  1837- 
1838,  VI.  299-300,  301.) 

April  12. — Presents  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  in  the  county  of  Wash- 
ington, Pennsylvania,  opposed  to  duelling.     (G.  25  G  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  302.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  provide  for  the  graduation 
and  reduction  of  the  price  of  public  lands.     (Id.  303.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was  ordered. 
(Id.  303.) 

April  13. — Presents  a  petition  concerning  the  Cherokee  treaty;  also  a 
petition  on  the  subject  of  duelling.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  304.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  providing  for  the  reduction  and  graduation  of  the 
price  of  public  lands.     (Id.  304-305.) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  305.) 

April  17. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Thomas  L.  Winthrop  and 
others,  of  the  New  England  Mississippi  Land  Company.  Votes  in  favor  of 
engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was  ordered.  (G.  25  C  2  s. 
1837-1838,  VI.  313.) 

April  18. — Remarks  on  the  consideration  of  the  bill  in  relation  to  pre- 
venting the  reissue  and  circulation  of  bills,  notes,  and  other  securities  of 
corporations  created  by  acts  of  Congress  which  have  expired.  (G.  25  C.  2  s. 
1837-1838,  VI.  31S.) 

Remarks  in  favor  of  a  bill  to  establish  a  board  of  commissioners  to 
examine  claims  against  the  United  States.     (Id.  316.) 

April  19. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  consideration  of  the 
resolution  fixing  a  day  for  adjournment.  Motion  carried.  (G.  25  C.  2  s. 
1837-1838,  VI.  318.) 

April  20. — Participates  in  debate,  supporting  the  bill  to  prevent  the 
reissue  and  circulation  of  expired  bills,  notes,  and  other  securities  of  corpora- 
tions created  by  Congress.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third 
reading.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.   1837-1838,  VI.  319.) 

*  April  23. — Speech  on  the  bill  to  prevent  the  reissue  and  circulation  of 
expired  bills,  notes,  and  other  securities  of  corporations  created  by  Congress. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  323,  324,  Appendix,  304-310.)  Votes  in  favor 
of  the  bill,  which  was  passed.     (Id.  324.) 

April  24. — Presents  a  memorial  of  the  Philadelphia  Chamber  of  Com- 
merce for  certain  improvements  in  navigation ;  also  a  memorial  of  Walter  R. 
Johnson  for  an  institution  for  researches  in  physical  science.  (G.  25  C.  2  s. 
1837-1838,  VI.  326.) 

April  25.— Participates  in  debate,  supporting  the  bill  to  establish  a  board 
of  commissioners  to  consider  claims  against  the  United  States.  Votes  against 
a  motion  to  lay  the  matter  on  the  table,  with  a  view  to  the  appointment  of 
a  select  committee  to  inquire  into  the  subject  of  claims.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837- 
1838,  VI.  334-) 

April  26. — Moves  the  printing  and  reference  of  a  memorial  previously 
presented  by  him  for  the  repair  of  piers  at  Reedy  Island,  in  the  Delaware, 
which  was  agreed  to.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  336.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  establish  a  board  of  commis- 


G. =Congressional  Globe— C. =Congress.—s. =session .—*= Printed  herein . 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1838         lxvii 

sioners  to  examine  claims  against  the  United  States,  reducing  the  compen- 
sation of  the  commissioners.  Remarks  advocating  the  bill.  Votes  in  favor 
of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was  ordered.  (G.  25  C.  2  s. 
1837-1838,   VI.   337-) 

April  27. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  provide  for  the 
security  of  the  emigrant  and  other  Indians  west  of  Missouri  and  Arkansas. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  340.) 

May  2. — Presents  and  comments  upon  memorials  against  international 
copyright  legislation ;  also  memorials  relating  to  making  New  Castle  a  port 
of  entry,  to  the  discovery  of  Espy  as  to  causes  of  storms,  to  the  annexation 
of  Texas,  and  to  the  abolition  of  slavery.     (G.  25  C  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  351.) 

Votes  for  the  bill  to  provide  for  the  security  of  the  emigrant  and  other 
Indians  west  of  Missouri  and  Arkansas,  which  was  passed.      (Id.  352.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  joint  resolution  on  the  subject  of  currency  discrimina- 
tions. Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  refer  the  resolution  to  the  Committee 
on  Finance.     (Id.  352,  Appendix,  296.) 

*  May  7. — Remarks  on  a  bill  to  increase  the  salary  of  the  Commissioner 
of  the  General  Land  Office.  Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third 
reading.     (G.  25  C  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  356.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the  bill  to  increase  the 
salaries  of  certain  district  judges.     (Id.  357.) 

May  10. — Presents  and  comments  upon  a  memorial  of  the  trustees  of 
the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  for  the  grant  of  public  lands  to  it  and  other 
institutions  for  educational  purposes.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  360.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  erection  of  a  hospital  in  the  District  of 
Columbia;  moves  postponement  of  the  subject,  which  was  agreed  to.  (Id. 
360.) 

Remarks  on  the  question  of  further  considering  the  bill  to  continue  the 
corporate  existence  of  the  banks  of  the  District  of  Columbia.     (Id.  361.) 

Moves  consideration  of  executive  business,  which  was  agreed  to.  (Id. 
36i.) 

*  May  11. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  continue  the  corporate  existence  of 
the  banks  of  the  District  of  Columbia.  Moves  to  strike  out  the  2d  section  of 
the  bill.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  365,  366.)  The  amendment  was  agreed 
to.     (Id.  368.) 

Moves  an  amendment  to  the  29th  section,  to  compel  banks  to  keep  on 
hand  coin  equal  to  one-fourth  of  their  private  deposits,  as  well  as  of  their 
circulation.     Remarks  on  the  amendment.     (Id.  368.) 

May  12. — Presents  a  memorial  concerning  the  Cherokee  treaty.  (G.  25 
C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  372.) 

May  14. — Remarks  on  his  amendment  to  the  29th  section  of  the  bill  to 
continue  the  corporate  existence  of  banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  (G.  25 
C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  373-) 

May  16. — Votes  against  a  motion,  which  was  carried,  to  print  30,000 
copies  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Finance  on  Clay's  joint  resolution 
as  to  currency  discriminations.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  379-) 

May  17. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  resolution  offered 
by  Mr.  Allen  for  an  inquiry  into  the  condition  of  the  banks  in  the  District 
of  Columbia  that  have  applied  for  an  extension  of  their  charters.  (G.  25 
C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  381.)  Votes  in  favor  of  a  similar  motion  subsequently 
made.     (Id.  382.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  his  amendment  to  the  29th  section  of  the  bill  to  con- 
tinue the  corporate  existence  of  the  banks  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 
Amendment  rejected.     Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  29th  section, 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress.— s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


lxviii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

which  in  effect  was  to  require  banks  to  keep  on  hand  coin  equal  to  one-third 
of  their  circulation.     Amendment  adopted.     (Id.  382.) 

May  18. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  authorize  the  issuing 
of  Treasury  notes  to  meet  current  expenses  of  the  Government,  by  limiting 
the  issue  to  $2,000,000.  Amendment  rejected.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing 
the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was  ordered.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838, 
VI.  391.) 

May  21. — Presents  a  memorial  from  merchants  and  underwriters  of 
Philadelphia  for  a  law  requiring  at  least  sixty  days'  notice  before  wrecked 
property  could  be  sold.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  396.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  plan  presented  by  Mr.  Clay  for  a  Bank  of  the  United 
States.     (Id.  397~398.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  to  continue  the  corporate  existence  of  banks  in  the 
District  of  Columbia  for  twenty  years.  (Id.  399.)  Moves  to  modify  Benton's 
substitute  requiring  the  banks  to  resume  sooner  than  January  1,  1839,  if  the 
principal  banks  in  Baltimore  and  Richmond  should  resume  sooner,  which 
amendment  was  accepted  by  Mr.  Benton.  Moves  to  strike  out  the  second 
clause  of  Benton's  proviso,  relating  to  the  notes  of  other  banks,  which  was 
agreed  to.  Votes  in  favor  of  Benton's  substitute  for  the  bill,  which  was 
adopted.     (Id.  399.) 

May  22. — Presents  a  petition  for  a  Bank  of  the  United  States.  (G.  25 
C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  401.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  amending  the  act  giving  the 
assent  of  Congress  to  the  act  of  the  Virginia  Legislature  incorporating  the 
Falmouth  and  Alexandria  Railroad  Company,  by  appropriating  $300,000. 
Votes  against  ordering  the  bill  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading,  which 
was  ordered.     (Id.  404.) 

*  May  23. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the  continuation 
of  the  Cumberland  Road  through  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois. 
Remarks  on  the  clause  appropriating  $9,000  for  a  bridge  on  the  part  of  the 
road  leading  through  Pennsylvania.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  reduce  the 
appropriation  of  the  bill  from  $150,000  to  $100,000.  Motion  lost.  Votes  in 
favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was  ordered.  (G.  25 
C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  407-408.) 

May  24. — Vote?  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  continuation  of 
the  Cumberland  Road  through  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois.  (G.  25  C.  2  s. 
1837-1838,  VI.  409.) 

May  25. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike  from  the  Naval  Appropriation 
Bill  the  appropriation  for  an  exploring  expedition.  Motion  lost.  (G.  25  C. 
2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  4H-) 

*  Remarks  on  Clay's  resolution  on  currency  discriminations.  (Id.  411, 
Appendix,  346~347-) 

May  26. — Votes  in  favor  of  several  motions  striking  out  part  of  the 
resolution  on  currency  discriminations.      (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  412.) 

May  28. — Presents  a  memorial  of  William  B.  Stokes  for  remuneration 
for  losses  sustained  in  consequence  of  the  Postmaster-General's  refusal  to 
pay  an  award  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury ;  also  memorials  remonstrating 
against  the  Cherokee  treaty.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  183771838,  VI.  415.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  Clay's  resolution  on  currency  discrimina- 
tions.    Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  resolution,  which  was  ordered.     (Id. 

4I5-) 

May  29. — Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  Clay's  resolution  on  currency  dis- 
criminations.    (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  416.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.==Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1838  lxix 

May  30. — Votes  to  lay  on  the  table  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  John  J. 
Boulou.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  4I7-) 

May  31. — Presents  the  petition  of  F.  P.  Blair  for  certain  relief.  (G.  25 
C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  419.) 

Remarks  on  presentation  of  petitions  for  a  United  States  Bank.  (Id. 
419.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  a  bill  in  regard  to  the  town  of  Southport, 
Territory  of  Wisconsin;  votes  in  favor  of  the  bill,  which  was  passed. 
(Id.  421.) 

*  June  12. — Remarks  on  petitions  presented  by  Mr.  Webster  for  the 
repeal  of  the  portion  of  the  deposit  act  of  1836  which  prohibited  the  receipt 
by  the  Government  of  notes  of  banks  which,  since  the  act,  had  issued  notes 
of  less  than  $5  denomination.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  448.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  to  encourage 
the  cultivation  of  tropical  plants  in  the  United  States.     (Id.  449.) 

June  13. — Remarks  on  the  question  of  the  consideration  of  a  bill  for  the 
relief  of  Major-General  Macomb.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  450.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  to  set  apart  a  belt  of 
land  on  the  western  borders  of  Missouri  and  Arkansas,  as  bounty  land  for 
settlers  engaged  for  a  term  of  years  in  the  defence  of  the  frontier.     (Id.  450.) 

June  14. — Presents  the  proceedings  of  a  Democratic  meeting  in  Phila- 
delphia in  favor  of  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill ;  also  a  memorial  in  favor 
of  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill,  and  against  a  National  Bank.  (G.  25  C. 
2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  452.) 

Remarks  on  the  question  of  the  consideration  of  Mr.  Williams's  motion 
for  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  a  joint  commission  to  survey  the  northeastern 
boundary  of  the  United  States  on  the  basis  of  the  treaty  of  1783.     (Id.  453.) 

Moves  the  discharge  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  from  further 
consideration  of  the  petition  of  George  T.  Byard,  and  its  reference  to  the 
Committee  on  Claims.     (Id.  453.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  joint  resolution  on  the 
annexation  of  Texas.     Motion  prevailed.     (Id.  453.) 

June  16. — Presents  memorials  in  favor  of  the  Independent  Treasury 
Bill.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  455.) 

Reports  the  House  bill  for  settlement  of  the  accounts  of  Richard  Harris, 
late  United  States  commercial  agent  in  Spain.     (Id.  455.) 

Votes  against  various  amendments  to  the  bill  establishing  a  surveyor- 
general's  office  in  Michigan.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  the  bill  on  the 
table.     (Id.  455~4S6.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  for  the  relief  of 
Major-General  Alexander  Macomb.     (Id.  456.) 

June  18. — Presents  memorials  in  favor  of  the  Sub-Treasury  Bill,  and 
against  a  United  States  Bank;  also  a  petition  against  an  international  copy- 
right law;  also  a  petition  for  a  diplomatic  agent  to  Hayti,  and  commercial 
regulations  with  that  country.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  457.) 

*  Speech  on  a  motion  for  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  for  a  joint  commission 
to  survey  the  northeastern  boundary  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  treaty 
of  peace  of  1783.     (Id.  457,  Appendix,  382-387.) 

June  19. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  grant  pre-emption  to  settlers  on  the 
public  lands.  Votes  on  several  House  amendments  to  the  bill.  Votes  in 
favor  of  concurring  in  the  House  amendments  to  the  bill  as  amended.  (G. 
25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  462,  463.) 

June  20. — Presents  memorials  in  favor  of  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill 
and  against  a  United  States  Bank.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  464.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.— s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


Ixx  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  for  abolishing 
imprisonment  for  debt  in  certain  cases.     So  ordered.     (Id.  464.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  Mr.  Williams's  motion  for  leave  to  bring  in 
a  bill  for  the  survey  of  the  northeastern  boundary  of  the  United  States 
according  to  the  treaty  of  1783,  and,  the  bill  having  been  introduced,  advo- 
cates its  reference  to  tfye  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.     (Id.  464,  465.) 

June  22.— Presents  a  petition  in  favor  of  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill 
and  against  a  United  States  Bank.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  473.) 

June  25. — Presents  memorials  in  favor  of  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill 
and  against  a  United  States  Bank.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  478.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  rescind  that  part  of  the  resolution  requiring 
original  papers  on  private  claims  not  to  be  withdrawn,  but  allowing  copies 
to  be  made  for  certain  compensation,  which  required  compensation  for 
copies  obtained.  Motion  prevailed.  Votes  against  Sevier's  motion  to  rescind 
the  whole  rule,  which  motion  was  lost.     (Id.  478.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  resolution  fixing  the  day  of  adjournment.     (Id.  478-479.) 
Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  bill   for  the  benefit  of  the  Alabama, 

Florida,  and  Georgia  Railroad  Company.     (Id.  479.) 

*  June  26. — Remarks  on  the  resolution  fixing  a  day  of  adjournment. 
Votes  against  Benton's  motion  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  resolution. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  481.) 

Remarks  on  introducing  a  bill  supplementary  to  the  act  to  establish  the 
Treasury  Department.     (Id.  481.) 

*  June  27. — Remarks  on  offering  as  a  substitute  for  Mr.  Webster's  bill 
for  the  collection  of  the  public  revenue  a  bill  introduced  on  June  26,  1838. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1 837-1 838,  VI.  483,  Appendix,  399-401.) 

Participates  in  the  discussion  of  the  bill  to  divide  the  State  of  Delaware 
into  two  collection  districts.     (Id.  483.) 

*  June  28. — Remarks  on  his  substitute  for  Webster's  bill  for  the  collection 
of  the  public  revenue.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  485,  Appendix,  466-467.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  to  purchase  the  right 
to  use  in  the  Army  and  Navy  a  certain  vapor  bath.     (Id.  485.) 

June  29. — Remarks  on  his  substitute  for  Webster's  bill  for  the  collection 
of  the  public  revenue.  Votes  against  two  amendments  and  in  favor  of  one 
amendment,  all  of  which  were  rejected.  Votes  in  favor  of  his  own  substitute, 
which  was  adopted.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill  as  amended.  (G.  25  C.  2  s. 
1837-1838,  VI.  487.) 

June  30. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  Mr.  Wright's  bill  modifying 
the  deposit  act  of  1836,  which  prohibited  the  reception,  by  the  Government, 
of  the  notes  of  banks  that  had  issued  notes  of  a  less  denomination  than  $5. 
(G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  488.) 

July  2. — Participates  in  a  debate  on  a  bill  making  further  provision  for 
the  discharge  of  debenture  bonds  in  certain  cases.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838, 
VI.  490.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  modifying  the  bill  of  1836,  which 
prohibited  the  reception,  by  the  Government,  of  the  notes  of  banks  that  had 
issued  notes  of  a  less  denomination  than  $5.     The  bill  was  passed.     (Id.  491.) 

July  3. — Participates  in  a  discussion  on  a  motion  to  print  5,000  extra 
copies  of  a  report  of  the  Naval  Committee  relative  to  the  discovery  of  the 
longitude  by  the  dip  of  the  needle.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  493.) 

July  4. — Remarks  on  a  bill  regulating  the  pay  of  brevet  officers,  favoring 
an  amendment  including  General  Jones.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  496.) 

*  Presents  a  report  on  the  northeastern  boundary,  with  resolutions.  (S. 
Doc.  502,  25  C.  2  s.;  S.  Doc.  287,  25  C.  3  s. ;  G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  496.) 


G.= Congressional  Globe— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1838         lxxi 

July  6. — Remarks  on  a  motion  for  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the 
Harbor  Bill.  Votes  against  the  motion,  which  was  lost.  Votes  on  various 
amendments  to  the  bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third 
reading,  but  the  question  was  decided  in  the  negative.  (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837- 
1838,  VI.  501.) 

July  7. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Indian  Appropriation 
Bill,  adding  $260,000  for  helpless  Indians  removed  west  of  the  Mississippi. 
The  amendment  was  agreed  to.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1837-1838,  VI.  504.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  of  the  previous  day, 
rejecting  the  Harbor  Bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill 
with  certain  instructions.  The  bill  being  subsequently  reported,  participates 
in  a  debate  on  it.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading. 
Bill  subsequently  passed.     (Id.  504.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  an  amendment  to  the  Fortifications  Bill,  by 
following  the  appropriation  for  Fort  Delaware,  on  Pea  Patch  Island,  with 
an  authorization  to  the  Executive  to  secure  the  title  by  purchase  or  inquest; 
votes  in  favor  of  the  amendment.  Participates  in  a  debate  on  a  motion  to 
strike  out  the  above  appropriation,  and  votes  against  the  motion.     (Id.  505.) 

December  3. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.  (G.  25  C.  3  s. 
1838-1839,  VII.  1.) 

December  5. — Gives  notice  that  on  the  next  day  he  will  bring  in  a  bill  for 
the  relief  of  Thomas  Sumpter.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  9.) 

Suggests  balloting  for  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Commerce,  which 
is  agreed  to.     (Id.  16.) 

December  6. — Announced  as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  17;  S.  Doc.  3,  25  C.  3  s.) 

Presents  the  petition  of  Joseph  C.  Cornwall  for  a  pension.     (Id.  17.) 

Introduces  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Thomas  Sumpter.     (Id.  18.) 

December  10. — Moves  reference  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
of  that  part  of  the  President's  annual  message  relating  to  foreign  affairs. 
Motion  adopted.     (G.  25  C  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  20.) 

December  12. — Presents  the  memorial  of  Commodore  David  Porter  for 
pension  arrearages.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  25.) 

December  17. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  postpone  the 
fourth  instalment  of  the  deposit  act,  postponing  the  instalment  to  January 
1,  1840.     Amendment  lost.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  37.) 

December  18. — Presents  a  petition  of  Andrew  Logan  for  lands  to  be 
used  in  the  culture  of  silk.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  41.) 

*  Presents  and  comments  upon  the  petition  of  James  P.  Espy  as  to  rain- 
making.  (Id.  41-42.)  Moves  to  lay  the  petition  on  the  table.  Motion 
carried.     (Id.  42.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Appropriations  Bill,  providing  for 
pensions  to  the  widows  of  Revolutionary  officers.     (Id.  44,  46.) 

References,  in  remarks  of  Mr.  Strange,  to  votes  on  certain  questions. 
(Id.  46,  47-) 

*  December  19. — Remarks  and  resolution  of  inquiry  as  to  the  expediency 
of  providing  for  the  construction  of  one  or  more  steam  vessels  of  war.  (G. 
25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  48.) 

December  21. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  amendment  to  the  Appropriations 
Bill,  providing  for  pensions  to  the  widows  of  Revolutionary  officers.  Amend- 
ment rejected.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  59.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress. — s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


lxxii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

SENATE  (Continued),  1839. 

January  2,  1839. — Presents  a  memorial  for  establishing  New  Castle  as  a 
port  of  entry;  also  a  memorial  of  J.  C.  White  for  correction  of  error  in 
naturalization  papers;  a  memorial  asking  that  vaccine  may  be  transmitted 
by  mail  free  of  postage ;  and  a  memorial  for  the  improvement  of  the 
Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  92.) 

January  3. — Votes  in  favor  of  laying  on  the  table  the  question  of  receiving 
a  memorial  against  the  admission  of  any  new  State  into  the  Union  whose 
constitution  should  tolerate  slavery,  and  against  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
(G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  95.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  question  of  receiving 
a  petition  for  the  abolition  of  the  sale  and  transfer  of  slaves  from  one  State 
to  another.     (Id.  95.) 

Presents  a  petition  of  Cadwallader  Evans  concerning  his  invention  to 
prevent  the  explosion  of  steam-boilers.     (Id.  95.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  recommitting  the  bill  for  the  graduation  and  reduction 
of  the  price  of  the  public  lands.  Votes  in  favor  of  instructions  to  amend 
the  bill  so  as  to  limit  the  sales,  at  the  reduced  prices,  to  actual  settlers.  (Id. 
95,  Appendix,  53.) 

January  4. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  clearing  out  of  the  harbor  of 
Philadelphia  at  the  mouth  of  the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  Canal  and  in  the 
Delaware.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  97-) 

*  January  5. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  providing  that  the  front  seats  of 
the  eastern  gallery  of  the  Senate  be  set  apart  for  reporters.  Votes  in  favor 
of  postponing  the  resolution  indefinitely.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  101.) 

January  7. — Presents  a  memorial  of  S.  R.  Slaymaker  for  compensation  for 
carrying  mail.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  103.) 

January  9. — Votes  in  favor  of  laying  on  the  table  a  motion  to  print  certain 
resolutions  of  the  Virginia  Legislature  against  the  annexation  of  Texas  and 
on  the  subject  of  slavery.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.   no.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  for  carrying  into  effect  the  convention  between 
the  United  States  and  Texas,  and  marking  the  boundary  between  the  two 
countries.     (Id.  no.) 

*  Votes  on  and  offers  various  amendments  to  the  bill  to  provide  for  the 
graduation  and  reduction  of  the  price  of  public  lands.     (Id.  no.) 

January  10. — Presents  a  petition  of  Simon  Brewster  for  increase  of 
pension.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  111-112.) 

Remarks  in  opposition  to  and  votes  against  various  amendments  to  the 
public  land  bill.     (Id.  112,  129.) 

January  11. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  reduction  and  graduation  of 
the  price  of  public  lands.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  114.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  adjourn.     (Id.  114.) 

January  14. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  bill  for 
the  reduction  and  graduation  of  the  price  of  public  lands.  (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838- 
1839,  VII.  121.) 

January  15.— Votes  against  a  motion  to  adjourn.  Votes  against  an 
amendment  that  when  so  much  of  the  public  land  in  any  State  shall  be  sold 
as  to  leave  but  2,000,000  acres,  the  remainder  shall  be  ceded  to  the  State. 
Amendment  rejected.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  adjourn.  Later,  votes  for 
such  a  motion.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  126.) 

January  16. — Presents  a  petition  for  improving  the  navigation  of  the  Ohio 
River.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  127.) 

G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1839       lxxiii 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  for  the  reduction 
and  graduation  of  the  price  of  public  lands;  which  was  ordered.     (Id.  127.) 

*  January  17. — Remarks  on  Clay's  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  gradu- 
ation and  reduction  of  the  price  of  public  lands.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill, 
which  was  passed.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  130,  Appendix,  60-61.) 

January  18. — Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  a  motion  to  reconsider  the 
vote  on  striking  out  the  enacting  clause  of  the  bill  for  the  continuation  of 
the  Cumberland  Road.  Votes  against  the  motion  to  strike  out  the  enacting 
clause.  Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  the  bill  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  read- 
ing.    (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  133.) 

Remarks  on  a  petition  in  relation  to  the  circuit  and  district  courts  of 
Arkansas.     (Id.   132.) 

January  21. — Presents  a  memorial  of  Susan  Bainbridge  for  a  pension. 
(G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  135.) 

January  22. — Votes  against  Clay's  amendment  to  the  bill  prohibiting  chal- 
lenges to  duels  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII. 

139.) 

January  23. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  prohibit  chal- 
lenges to  duels  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  The  bill  was  passed.  (G.  25  C. 
3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  141.) 

Moves  consideration  of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  John  Campbell  White, 
of  Baltimore,  which  was  agreed  to;  and  makes  remarks  in  its  favor.  (Id. 
142.) 

January  24. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  to 
amend  the  act  to  authorize  Tennessee  to  issue  grants  and  perfect  titles  to 
certain  lands.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  144.) 

January  28. — Moves  reference  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  of  the 
petition  of  Britton  Evans  for  compensation  for  losses  by  shipwreck.  (G.  25 
C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  149.) 

*  January  29. — Remarks  on  a  bill  to  repeal  the  duty  on  salt  and  the 
fishing  bounties.  (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  157,  Appendix,  75-76.)  Votes 
against  a  motion  to  lay  the  whole  subject  on  the  table.     (Id.  157.) 

January  30. — Presents  a  memorial  of  Samuel  Raub,  Jr.,  relative  to  steam- 
boilers  and  safety-valves.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  158.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  Benton's  resolution  calling 
upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  a  statement  of  the  deficiency  which 
would  have  resulted  had  the  bill  for  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
public  lands  been  enacted.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolution,  which  was 
adopted.     (Id.  158.) 

Votes  against  granting  leave  to  Mr.  Benton  to  introduce  a  bill  repealing 
the  duty  on  salt.     (Id.  159.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  a  joint  resolution  directing  the  manner  in 
which  certain  laws  of  the  District  are  to  be  executed.     (Id.  159.) 

January  31.— Reports  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Charles  S.  Walsh.  (G.  25 
C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  160.) 

February  2. — Presents  a  memorial  for  an  artificial  harbor  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Chesapeake  and  Delaware  Canal.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  164.) 

February  4. — Presents  a  petition  for  a  steam  revenue-cutter  on  Lake  Erie ; 
also  a  petition  for  an  artificial  harbor  at  the  mouth  of  the  Chesapeake  and 
Delaware  Canal;  and  a  petition  of  Job  Whittall,  of  Philadelphia,  for  relief. 
(G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  168.) 

February  5.— Presents  a  petition  of  Mary  E.  Shaw  and  the  executors  of 
John  E.  Shaw.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  172.) 

February  6. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  bill 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Cong;ress.— s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


lxxiv  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

providing  for  an  armed  occupation  of  that  part  of  the  Territory  of  Florida 
which  is  overrun  by  Indians.     (G.  25  C  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  174.) 

February  8. — Reports  bills  for  the  settlement  of  the  accounts  of  Edward 
Roberts  and  for  the  relief  of  Benjamin  Hewitt;  also,  with  a  recommendation 
for  indefinite  postponement,  bills  for  the  relief  of  Cornelius  Manning  and 
Benjamin  Hodges.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  179.) 

*  Remarks  on  Morris's  resolution  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  Votes 
against  laying  the  motion  to  consider  the  resolution  on  the  table.     (Id.  179.) 

February  9. — Reports  a  bill  for  relief  of  the  legal  representatives  of  Brad- 
ford, deceased.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.   1838-1839,  VII.  180.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  bill  for  the  armed 
occupation  of  that  part  of  Florida  overrun  by  Indians.     (Id.  181.) 

February  12. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  prevent  the  interference  of  Federal 
officers  in  elections.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  189.) 

*  February  14. — Speech  on  the  bill  to  prevent  the  interference  of  Federal 
officers  in  elections.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1 838-1839,  VII.  194,  Appendix,  203-210.) 

February  16. — Presents  a  memorial  of  Edward  D.  Tippet.     (G.  25  C.  3  s. 

1838-1839,  VII.  I99-) 

February  18. — Votes  against  a  substitute  for  the  bill  more  effectually  to 
secure  public  money  in  the  hands  of  Government  officers  and  agents  and 
to  punish  defaulters.  Votes  against  an  amendment  providing  that  deposits 
in  any  bank  shall  be  at  the  credit  of  the  United  States  Treasurer.  Votes  in 
favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.  (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839, 
VII.  202.) 

February  19. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  armed 
occupation  and  settlement  of  Florida.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.   1838-1839,  VII.  205.) 

February  20. — Presents  a  petition  of  Reynell  Coates  for  compensation ; 
also  a  memorial  for  a  new  custom-house  in  Philadelphia.  (G.  25  C.  3  s. 
1838-1839,  VII.  207.) 

February  26. — Votes  against  the  postponement  of  the  bill  concerning  the 
powers  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  District  o^  Columbia.  Votes  against 
recommitment  of  the  bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill.  (G.  25 
C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  221.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  to  revive  the  act  enabling  claimants  to  lands  in 
Missouri  and  Arkansas  to  try  the  validity  of  their  claims.     (Id.  221.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  President's  message  concerning  the  dispute  as  to  the 
Maine  boundary.  (Id.  223,  Appendix,  210-212.)  Moves  reference  of  the 
message  to  the  Foreign  Relations  Committee,  which  was  agreed  to.    (Id.  223.) 

*  February  28. — Reports  resolutions  on  the  dispute  as  to  the  Maine 
boundary.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  229;  S.  Doc.  272,  25  C.  3  s.) 

Votes  against  Webster's  amendment  to  the  Army  Appropriations  Bill, 
appropriating  $272,000  for  the  services  of  the  Massachusetts  militia  during 
the  last  war  with  Great  Britain.     (Id.  230.) 

March  1. — Participates  in  a  debate  on  a  resolution  that  a  letter  from 
the  Postmaster-General  be  laid  before  the  President,  with  a  request  for  the 
Postmaster-General's  dismissal.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  234.) 

Votes  against  Benton's  amendment  to  the  Army  Appropriations  Bill, 
appropriating  $740,000  for  the  repair  and  completion  of  fortifications.     (Id. 

234-) 

*  Remarks  on  the  resolutions  concerning  the  dispute  as  to  the  Maine 
boundary.  (Id.  308,  309-310,  311,  314-315,  316.)  Votes  against  Webster's 
motion  to  change  the  resolutions  so  as  to  define  more  exactly  what  Maine's 
position  should  be.     (Id.  316.) 

March   2. — Votes    in    favor   of   a   motion    that   the    Senate    insist   on   its 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1840        lxxv 

amendment  to  the  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Appropriations  Bill,  striking  out  a 
provision  for  the  distribution  of  the  Documentary  History  among  the  mem- 
bers of  Congress.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  238.) 

Remarks  on  a  resolution  accepting  as  satisfactory  the  disclaimer  by  the 
Postmaster-General  of  disrespect  to  the  Senate.     (Id.  238.) 

Votes  against  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the  protection  of  the  northern 
and  northwestern  frontier,  appropriating  various  sums  for  Maine,  the  West, 
and  the  Atlantic  and  Gulf  coast.     (Id.  238.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  to  give  the  President  additional  powers  to  defend 
the  country  against  invasion.  (Id.  238,  239-240.)  Votes  against  a  motion 
to  strike  out  the  provision  for  raising  50,000  volunteers.  Votes  in  favor  of 
engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  240.) 

March  3. — Remarks  on  a  bill  to  authorize  the  construction  of  certain 
improvements  in  Wisconsin.     (G.  25  C.  3  s.  1838-1839,  VII.  245.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  agreeing  to  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Conference 
on  amendments  to  the  General  Appropriation  Bill.     (Id.  246.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  that  the  Senate  adjourn.     (Id.  247.) 

December  2. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.  (G.  26  C.  1  s. 
1839-1840,  VIII.  1.) 

December  16. — Appointed  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Rela- 
tions and  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839- 
1840,  VIII.  54;  S.  Doc.  3,  26  C.  1  s.) 

December  24. — Motion,  and  remarks  thereon,  for  printing  3,500  addi- 
tional copies  of  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Motion  agreed 
to.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  78-79-) 

December  27. — Presents  the  petition  of  Daniel  Palmer  for  increase  of 
pension;  also  a  memorial  for  increase  of  salary  of  the  judge  of  the  Western 
District  of  Pennsylvania ;  a  memorial  for  a  post  route  in  Lancaster  County, 
Pennsylvania;  and  the  petition  of  Abraham  Coote  for  increase  of  pension. 
(G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  81.) 

iGives  notice  that  on  the  following  day  he  will  ask  leave  to  introduce  a 
bill  for  the  relief  of  Samuel  R.   Slaymaker.     (Id.  81.) 

Moves  that  the  part  of  the  President's  annual  message  relating  to  foreign 
affairs  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  which  was  agreed 
to.     (Id.  83.) 

December  29. — Presents  a  memorial  for  reduction  of  postage  rates.  (G. 
26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  86.) 

Introduces  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Samuel  R.  Slaymaker.     (Id.  86.) 

SENATE  (Continued),  1840. 

January  3,  1840. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  reference  to 
the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  of  the  bill  for  ceding  public  lands  to  States 
within  which  they  are  situated.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  98.) 

January  4. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  Independent  Treasury 
Bill.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.,  Appendix,  108.) 

January  6. — Presents  a  memorial  from  certain  army  officers  of  the  line 
for  equalization  of  pay  with  the  staff ;  also  a  memorial  of  William  Strickland 
and  others  for  permission  to  import  free  of  duty  a  publication  of  a  descrip- 
tion of  the  public  works  of  the  United  States.  Moves  to  refer  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Pensions  the  petition  of  John  R.  Midwinter  and  the  case  of 
Elizabeth  Truxton.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  102.) 

January  7. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  Benton's  resolution 
relative  to  the  assumption  of  State  debts.     (G.  26  C  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  105.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.— s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


lxxvi  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

January  9. — Presents  a  memorial  of  American  citizens  at  Malaga,  King- 
dom of  Spain,  for  provision  of  a  place  of  burial.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840, 
VIII.  108.) 

*  January  10. — Remarks  on  a  memorial  from  the  Legislative  Council  of 
Iowa  for  a  settlement  of  the  boundary  line  between  Iowa  Territory  and 
Missouri.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1 839-1840,  VIII.  112.) 

January  14. — Moves  that  the  representatives  of  John  Brooks  have  leave 
to  withdraw  their  petition  and  papers.  Motion  adopted.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839- 
1840,  VIII.  120.) 

Votes  against  postponing  the  bill  for  the  collection  and  disbursement 
of  the  public  money.  (Id.  120.)  Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  increas- 
ing the  salary  of  the  receiver  at  New  York.  Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment 
increasing  the  salaries  of  the  receivers  at  other  ports.  Moves  an  amendment 
for  the  increase  of  the  salaries  of  the  receivers  at  Philadelphia  and  New 
Orleans;  remarks  on  the  motion.     (Id.  120.) 

January  15. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  calling  for  correspondence  relating 
to  the  dispute  as  to  the  northeastern  boundary.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840, 
VIII.  122.) 

Accepts  a  modification  of  his  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  collection 
and  disbursement  of  the  public  money,  as  to  the  amount  of  increase  of  the 
salaries  of  the  receivers  at  Philadelphia  and  New  Orleans.     (Id.   122.) 

January  16. — Remarks  on  the  consideration  of  the  resolution  calling  for 
correspondence  relating  to  the  dispute  as  to  the  northeastern  boundary.  (G. 
26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  124.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Sub-Treasury  Bill,  striking  out 
the  clauses  which  permitted  the  reception  and  disbursement  of  Federal  paper. 
(Id.,  Appendix,  125.) 

January  17. — Moves  that  the  Senate  take  up  the  consideration  of  the 
resolution  calling  for  correspondence  relating  to  the  northeastern  boundary 
dispute,  which  was  agreed  to.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  126.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  subject  of  the  resolution.     (Id.  126-127.) 
Participates  in  the  discussion  on  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill.     Votes 

in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  127.) 

January  20. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  armed 

occupation   and   settlement  of  that  part  of  Florida  infested  by  marauding 

Indians.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  130.) 

January  21. — Moves   that  the   Independent  Treasury   Bill  be   informally 

passed  over,  which  was  agreed  to.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  130;  Niles' 

Register,  Jan.  28,  1840,  LVII.  347.) 

*  January  22. — Speech  in  reply  to  Mr.  Clay  on  the  Independent  Treasury 
Bill.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  133,  Appendix,  129-137.) 

January  23. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  steam  revenue-cutter  on  Dela- 
ware Bay.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  139.)  Remarks  on  the  memorial. 
(Niles'  Register,  Feb.  1,  1840,  LVII.  363.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill.  (G.  26 
C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  141.) 

*  January  24. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  silk.  (G.  26  C.  1  s. 
1839-1840,  VIII.  143.) 

February  3. — Presents  a  number  of  petitions  on  various  subjects.  (G.  26 
C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  158.) 

February  5. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  report  of  the 
select  committee  on  the  assumption  by  the  Government  of  State  debts.  Votes 
in  favor  of  printing  the  usual  number  of  copies  of  the  report.  (G.  26  C.  1  s. 
1839-1840,  VIII.  164.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress.— s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1840      lxxvii 

February  7. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  silk.  (G.  26  C.  1  s. 
1839-1840,  VIII.  171.) 

February  10. — Presents  a  petition  for  carrying  into  effect  certain  treaty 
stipulations  with  the  Sioux  Indians;  also  memorials  for  a  duty  on  silk. 
(G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  176.) 

*  February  11. — Presents  a  memorial  relating  to  the  use  of  bloodhounds 
in  the  Seminole  War.  Remarks  on  the  subject.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840, 
VIII.  183-184.) 

Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  silk.     (Id.  184.) 
February  13. — Presents  memorials  for  a  duty  on  silk;  also  a  petition  of 
the  widow  of  Samuel  Jamison.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  187.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  petition  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.     (Id.  188-189,  197.) 
February  14. — Presents  memorials  against  the  use  of  bloodhounds  in  the 

Seminole  War;  also  a  petition  for  the  repeal  of  laws  conflicting  with  the 
Constitution;  and  a  petition  for  the  abolition  of  the  foreign  slave  trade.  (G. 
26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  198.) 

*  Presents  a  petition  for  a  duty  on  umbrellas.     (Id.  198.) 

February  17. — Remarks  on  Hazard's  United  States  Commercial  and 
Statistical  Register.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.   1839-1840,  VIII.  201.) 

Presents  memorials  relating  respectively  to  a  duty  on  silk,  the  use  of 
bloodhounds  in  the  Seminole  War,  and  the  abolition  of  slavery.     (Id.  201.) 

Presents  a  petition  of  Hugh  Stewart.     (Id.  203.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  resolution  on  the  assumption  of  State  debts.     (Id.  205.) 
February  18. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  silk.     (G.  26  C.  1  s. 

1839-1840,  VIII.  207.) 

February  20. — Votes  against  Clay's  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the 
subject  of  the  assumption  of  State  debts.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII. 
213.)     Remarks  during  the  discussion  of  the  subject.     (Id.,  Appendix,  184.) 

February  21. — Participates  in  a  discussion  on  a  resolution  to  amend  the 
joint  rules  that  no  claim  which  had  been  twice  reported  in  either  House, 
adversely,  should  again  be  presented.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  218.) 

*  February  24. — Remarks  on  the  question  of  a  bankrupt  law.  (G.  26  C. 
1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  220.) 

Offers  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  amending  the 
Constitution  so  as  to  prohibit  the  issue  and  circulation  of  paper  currency 
of  a  low  denomination.     (Id.  220.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  concurring  in  a  House  amendment  to  the  bill  relating 
to  taking  the  sixth  census.     (Id.  221.) 

February  25. — Presents  a  memorial  for  revision  of  the  duty  on  woollen 
goods;  also  petitions  as  to  the  sale  and  transfer  of  American  vessels  abroad 
and  for  the  suppression  of  the  slave  trade ;  and  memorials  against  the  use  of 
bloodhounds  in  the  Seminole  War.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  223.) 

*  February  26. — Remarks  on  his  resolution  as  to  the  prohibition  of  small 
paper  currency.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  224-225,  Appendix,  218,  219, 
220.) 

*  February  27. — His  resolution  as  to  prohibition  of  small  paper  currency 
adopted.  A  committee  appointed  thereunder,  of  which  he  is  chairman.  (G. 
26  C.  1  s.  1830-1840,  VIII.  225,  Appendix,  221.) 

February  28. — Presents  memorials  for  the  protective  system ;  also  a 
memorial  for  a  bankrupt  law ;  and  memorials  against  the  use  of  bloodhounds 
in  the  Seminole  War.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  226.) 

Participates  in  a  discussion  on  the  subject  ,of  allowing  drawbacks  on 
foreign  coal  consumed  in  steam  vessels.     (Id.  226.) 

March  2. — Presents  a  memorial  of  the  United  States  Insurance  Company 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress. — s.=session.—  *=Printed  herein. 


lxxviii        THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

and  of  the  Insurance  Company  of  Pennsylvania  to  be  indemnified  for  prop- 
erty sequestrated  by  Hayti  in  1811;  also  memorials  against  the  use  of  blood- 
hounds in  the  Seminole  War.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  228.) 

*  March  3. — Remarks,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Davis,  on  the  Independent  Treasury 
Bill.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  230,  Appendix,  244-246.) 

March  4. — Votes  in  favor  of  concurring  in  a  House  amendment  to  the 
bill  to  continue  the  office  of  Commissioner  of  Patents.  (G.  26  C  1  s.  1839- 
1840,  VIII.  235.) 

March  6. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  silk ;  also  a  memorial 
for  a  bankrupt  law.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  243.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  the  report  of  the  select  committee  on  the 
resolutions  as  to  the  assumption  of  State  debts.  Offers  an  amendment 
declaring  that  the  debts  were  contracted  in  the  exercise  of  the  constitutional 
power  of  the  States,  and  that  there  was  no  ground  for  doubting  the  ability 
or  disposition  of  the  States  to  fulfil  their  contracts.  Votes  against  various 
amendments,  and  in  favor  of  each  of  the  resolutions,  which  were  agreed  to. 
(Id.  244,  245.) 

*  Remarks,  in  reply  to  further  remarks  of  Mr.  Davis,  on  the  Independent 
Treasury  Bill.     (Id.,  Appendix,  335-338.) 

March  II. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  improvement  of  the  navigation 
of  the  Alleghany  River ;  also  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  silk ;  a  memorial  on 
banking;  and  a  memorial  against  the  use  of  bloodhounds  in  the  Seminole 
War.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  259-) 

March  16. — Presents  a  number  of  memorials.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840, 
VIII.  274.) 

March  17. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  bankrupt  law.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839- 
1840,  VIII.  277.)       « 

*  Remarks  on  the  controversy  with  Mr.  Davis  as  to  the  Independent 
Treasury  Bill.     (Id.,  Appendix,  295-296.) 

March  30. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  grant  of  lands  to  commissioned 
officers  of  the  last  war  with  Great  Britain ;  also  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on 
silk;  and  a  memorial  for  the  mitigation  of  the  punishment  of  William  Lyon 
Mackenzie.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  294.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  the  bill  supplementary  to  the  act  on  the  subject 
of  Treasury  notes.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill,  which  was  passed.  (Id.  295, 
Appendix,  329.) 

*  March  31. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  fixing  the  day  of  adjournment  on 
the  18th  of  May.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table. 
(G.  26  C  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  296-297.) 

April  2. — Votes  against  a  substitute  for  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill.  Votes 
against  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  reducing  the  appropriation  for  each  State 
to  $75,000.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  299,  Appendix,  333.) 

April  3. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  bankrupt  law.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839- 
1840,  VIII.  301.) 

Submits  additional  documents  in  relation  to  the  memorial  of  the  Phila- 
delphia Custom-house  clerks.     (Id.  302.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  discontinuance  of  the 
office  of  surveyor-general  and  the  abolition  of  land  offices,  abolishing  the 
office  of  recorder  of  the  General  Land  Office.     (Id.  302.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  for  the  con- 
tinuation of  the  Cumberland  Road  in  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois.     (Id.  302.) 

April  6. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  bankrupt  law.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839- 
1840,  VIII.  306.) 

April  9. — Remarks  on  resolutions  of  the  Maine  Legislature  asking  Con- 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.==Congress.—s.==session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1840       lxxix 

gress  to  pay  for  French  spoliations  prior  to  September,  1800.     (Niles'  Regis- 
ter, April  18,  1840,  LVIII.  106;  G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  310.) 

April  13. — Presents  a  petition  of  the  heirs  of  James  Van  Osten.  (G.  26 
C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  320.) 

*  Presents  a  report  on  resolutions  on  the  subject  of  the  brig  Enterprise. 
(Id.  320;  S.  Doc.  378,  26  C.  1  s.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  enabling  claimants  to  land  in 
Missouri,  Arkansas,  Louisiana,  and  Mississippi  to  try  the  validity  of  their 
claims.     Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  321.) 

*  April  14. — Report  and  remarks  on  the  northeastern  boundary  dispute. 
(G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  322,  323;  S.  Doc.  382,  26  C.  1  s.) 

April  15. — Votes  against  a  motion  laying  on  the  table  a  resolution  declar- 
ing that  the  seizure  and  detention  of  the  negroes  on  board  the  brig  Enterprise 
in  Bermuda  violated  the  laws  of  nations.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolutions, 
which  were  adopted.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  329.) 

April  16. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  relating  to  ,  pre- 
emption rights  on  public  lands.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a 
third  reading,  which  was  ordered.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  331.) 

*  April  17. — Remarks  on  the  bill  supplementary  to  the  act  establishing 
branch  mints.  Votes  against  a  motion,  which  was  lost,  to  recommit  the  bill. 
(G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  335,  Appendix,  317,  318.) 

April  21. — Asks  the  discharge  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
from  further  consideration  of  a  memorial  of  J.  M.  Clayton  and  others  on  a 
canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Darien,  which  was  agreed  to.  (G.  26  C.  1  s. 
1839-1840,  VIII.  341.) 

Opposes  a  bill  granting  Michigan  land  for  the  construction  of  a  canal 
around  the  Falls  of  Ste.  Marie.     (Id.  342.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  supplementary  to  the  act  to 
grant  pre-emption  rights  to  settlers  on  public  lands.  The  bill  was  passed. 
(Id.  342,  Appendix,  384.) 

April  23. — Votes  in  favor  of  striking  out  two  sections  of  the  bill  for  the 
reduction  and  graduation  of  the  price  of  public  lands. 

*  April  24. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  silk.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839- 
1840,  VIII.  354.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  reduction  and  graduation 
of  the  price  of  public  lands.     (Id.  355.) 

April  28. — Participates  in  a  debate  on  a  bill  respecting  the  judicial  system 
of  the  United  States.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  363.) 

Participates  in  further  discussion  of  the  bill.     (Id.  363.) 

April  29. — Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  grant- 
ing to  Michigan  land  for  constructing  a  canal  around  the  Falls  of  Ste.  Marie. 
So  ordered.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  364.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  granting  land  to  the  Territory  of  Florida  for  the 
establishment  of  Dade  Institute.  Moves  that  the  subject  be  laid  on  the  table, 
which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  364,  Appendix,  423.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  to  amend  the  act  amending  the  judicial  system  of 
the  United  States.     (Id.  364-) 

May  4. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  Civil  and  Diplomatic 
Appropriations  Bill.     (G.  26  C.   1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  377.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  resolution  for  examining  the  claim  of  Clarke  and  Force 
for  compiling  and  publishing  two  volumes  of  the  Documentary  History  of 
the  Revolution.     (Id.  378.) 

*  May  7. — Remarks  on  a  report  of -the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on 
public  expenditures.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  382,  Appendix,  441-442.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress. — s.=session.—  *=Printed  herein. 


lxxx  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  print  30,000  copies  of  the  report.     (Id.  382.) 

May  11. — Participates  in  a  discussion  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of 
Hannah  Leighton.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  387.) 

May  14. — Presents  a  memorial  relating  to  the  conflict  of  decisions  on  the 
revenue  law  as  to  imported  iron.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  393.) 

May  15. — Presents  a  number  of  memorials  on  various  subjects.  (G.  26 
C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  398.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  create  an  additional  land 
office  in  Michigan.     (Id.  398.) 

May  27. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Howard  Institute,  of  Washington.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  423.) 

Presents  a  memorial  for  the  suppression  of  the  African  slave  trade 
under  the  American  flag;  also  a  memorial  for  the  repair  of  wharfs  and  piers 
at  Port  Penn.     (Id.  421.) 

May  28. — Opposes  the  bill  authorizing  the  States  to  tax  any  lands  within 
their  limits  sold  by  the  United  States.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  426.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  General  Bankrupt  Law,  removing 
all  restrictions  and  making  it  general  in  its  application.  Remarks  on  the 
provision  relating  to  preferences  in  the  distribution  of  assets.     (Id.  426.) 

May  29. — Reports  a  bill  to  carry  into  effect  a  convention  between  the 
United  States  and  Mexico.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  428.) 

*  Reports  and  speaks  upon  a  resolution  for  the  sale  of  certain  presents 
from  the  Emperor  of  Morocco  and  Imaum  of  Muscat  to  the  President.  (Id. 
428;  Niles'  Register,  June  6,  1840,  LVIII.  218.) 

June  1. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  foreign  silk.  (G.  26  C.  1  s 
1839-1840,  VIII.  430.) 

Moves  that  the  Senate  take  up  and  consider  the  bill  to  carry  into  effect 
the  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico.     (Id.  431.) 

June  2. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  General  Bankrupt  Bill,  to 
strike  out  all  relating  to  banks  and  corporations.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840, 

VIII.  433.) 

*  June  3. — Reports  adversely  the  bill  to  refund  office  rent  advanced  by 
A.  H.  Everett  while  minister  to  Spain.  (S.  Doc.  511,  26  C.  1  s. ;  G.  26  C.  1  s. 
1839-1840,  VIII.  439-) 

June  5. — Reports  a  bill  for  relief  of  Auguste  Davezac,  William  P.  Jones, 
and  Nathaniel  Niles.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  444-) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  for  the  relief  of 
the  representatives  of  Philip  Barbour.     (Id.  444-) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  General  Bankrupt  Bill,  providing 
for  compulsory  bankruptcy.     (Id.  444-) 

*  Remarks  on  a  motion  to  postpone  the  subject  indefinitely.  (Id.  445, 
446.) 

Votes  against  the  motion,  which  was  lost.     (Id.  446.) 

*  June  11.— Remarks  on  a  bill  giving  officers  of  the  Marine  Corps  in 
command  of  the  different  stations  double  rations.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840, 
VIII.  457-458.)  Votes  against  a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Naval  Affairs,  with  instructions.  Votes  in  favor  of  ordering  the 
bill  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  458.) 

June  15. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill  to  continue  the  cor- 
porate existence  of  banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839- 
1840,  VIII.  465,  466.) 

Offers  an  amendment  for  extension  of  the  charters  till  July,  1842,  "  for 
the  purpose  of  winding  up  their  affairs."     (Id.  466.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  amendment,  which  was  lost.     (Id.  466-467.) 
Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  467.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1840         lxxxi 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  discharging  the  Committee  on  the  Militia 
from  further  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  War  on  the 
militia.     (Id.  467.) 

June  16. — Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  continue  the  corporate 
existence  of  banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840, 
VIII.  468.)  Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  title  of  the  bill.  Amend- 
ment was  rejected.     (Id.  468.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  print  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of 
War  on  the  militia,  adding  the  laws  of  1792  and  1803  on  the  same  subject. 
(Id.  468.) 

June  22. — Participates  in  a  debate  on  the  bill  giving  the  assent  of 
Congress  to  acts  of  Virginia  incorporating  the  Falmouth  and  Alexandria 
Railroad  Company.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  strike  out  an  appropria- 
tion of  $300,000.     Motion  lost.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  476.) 

June  23. — Participates  in  a  debate  on  the  joint  resolution  for  the  relief 
of  Langtree  and  O' Sullivan.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  478.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  General  Bankrupt  Bill.  Votes  in 
favor  of  laying  the  bill  on  the  table,  for  the  purpose  of  having  it  printed, 
which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  478-479.) 

June  24. — Participates  in  a  debate  on  a  bill  to  discharge  liens  and  incum- 
brances on  real  estate  owned  by  the  United  States.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839- 
1840,  VIII.  482.) 

Moves  the  consideration  of  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Auguste  Davezac, 
William  D.  Jones,  and  Nathaniel   Niles,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  482.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  March  4th  was 
fixed  as  the  day  when  the  General  Bankrupt  Bill  should  go  into  operation. 
Votes  against  fixing  March  4th  as  the  day  when  the  bill  should  go  into  opera- 
tion. Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  fix  February  1st  next  as  the  day,  which 
was  agreed  to.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  provision  limiting 
the  operation  of  the  bill  to  two  years.  Motion  lost.  Votes  against  ordering 
the  bill  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  482,  483.) 

June  25. — Moves  the  discharge  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
from  the  consideration  of  a  request  for  the  recall  of  Consul  Trist  from 
Havana,  and  its  reference  to  the  Committee  on  Commerce,  which  was  agreed 
to.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  484-) 

*  June  26. — Remarks  in  favor  of  printing  extra  copies  of  the  report  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  487,  488.) 

June  29. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  regulate  the  pay  of  the  officers  of  the 
line  and  staff  of  the  Army.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  491.) 

Moves  reference  of  President  Van  Buren's  message  on  the  northeastern 
boundary  dispute  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  which  was  agreed 
to.     (Id.  492.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  bill  to  aid  the 
Mount  Carmel  and  New  Albany  Railroad  Company  in  the  construction  of 
a  certain  railroad.     Motion  agreed  to.     (Id.  492.) 

July  1. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  calling  for  a  copy  of  the  British 
report  of  the  survey  and  map  relating  to  the  northeastern  boundary.  (G.  26 
C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  496.) 

Remarks  on  a  resolution  fixing  the  day  for  the  adjournment  of  Congress. 
(Id.  496.) 

*  July  3. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  calling  for  a  copy  of  the  British 
report  of  the  survey  and  map  relating  to  the  northeastern  boundary.  (G.  26 
C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  503.) 

July  6. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill  relating  to  the  collec- 


G.= Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress. — s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 

vi 


lxxxii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

tion  of  duties  on  imports.  Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  providing  that 
the  bill  should  cease  to  have  effect  after  June  30,  1842.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839- 
1840,  VIII.  510.) 

July  7. — Participates  in  a  discussion  on  a  bill  to  amend  the  act  regulating 
the  pay  of  the  Navy.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  512.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  relating  to  the  collection  of  duties 
on  imports.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which 
was  ordered.     (Id.  512.) 

July  8. — Presents  a  petition  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.  (G.  26  C.  1  s. 
1839-1840,  VIII.  514.) 

July  9. — Votes  on  several  amendments  to  a  bill  to  publish  the  laws, 
treaties,  and  other  documents  of  the  United  States,  under  the  Attorney- 
General's  direction.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  515.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  a  motion  to  reduce  the  compensation  and 
expenses  of  the  Attorney-General  from  $3,000  to  $2,000.  Votes  against  the 
motion,  which  was  rejected.  Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third 
reading.     Bill  rejected.     (Id.  516.) 

July  10. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  bill  to  estab- 
lish a  uniform  rule  of  computing  the  mileage  of  members  of  Congress.  Votes 
and  speaks  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840, 
VIII.  518,  519.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was 
ordered.     (Id.  519.) 

July  11. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  making  appropria- 
tions for  the  naval  service  for  1840,  adding  an  appropriation  of  $95,000  for  a 
dry-dock  at  Pensacola.  Amendment  adopted.  (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840, 
VIII.  522.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  motion  to  strike  out  an  appropriation  for  dry-docks  at 
New  York  and  Pensacola.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  motion,  which  was  agreed 
to.     (Id.  522.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  establish  a  uniform  rule  of 
computing  the  mileage  of  members  of  Congress.     Bill  passed.     (Id.  522.) 

July  13. — Remarks  on  a  bill  granting  pensions  to  Cherokee  warriors 
engaged  in  the  War  of  1812.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  524.) 

July  15. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  to 
extend  the  corporate  existence  of  banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Bill 
rejected.  Remarks  on  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote;  moves  postponement 
of  the  subject  till  next  day,  which  was  agreed  to.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840, 

VIII.  527.) 

July  16. — Moves  the  discharge  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
from  subjects  referred  to  it  and  not  acted  upon,  which  was  agreed  to.  (G. 
26  C.  1  s.  1830-1840,  VIII.  S29.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  till  the  next  session  a  resolution 
to  print  the  report  on  the  mineral  region  of  Iowa  and  Wisconsin.  Votes 
against  an  amendment  that  the  work  should  be  done  under  the  direction  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Senate.  Votes  in  favor  of  laying  the  resolution  on  the 
table.     (Id.  530.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  to  continue  the  corporate  existence  of  banks  in  the 
District  of  Columbia.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote 
rejecting  the  bill.     Motion  lost.     (Id.  530,  Appendix,  735~738.) 

July  17. — Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  resolution  pro- 
viding for  the  exchange  of  extra  books  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  and  of 
public  documents,  for  those  of  foreign  countries.  The  question  was  decided 
in  the  affirmative.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  534.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress. — s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1840       lxxxiii 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  take  up  a  bill  to  alter  and  continue  the 
charter  of  the  city  of  Washington.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  the  bill 
on  the  table.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading, 
which  was  ordered.     (Id.  534.) 

Takes  part  in  a  debate  on  an  appropriation  of  $12,000  for  the  purchase 
of  an  island  in  the  Mississippi,  near  Fort  Snelling.     (Id.  535.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Army  Appropriations  Bill  author- 
izing the  President,  in  case  the  means  of  the  Treasury  should  be  insufficient  to 
meet  appropriations,  to  postpone  certain  expenditures.     (Id.  535,  536.) 

Moves  an  appropriation  of  $6,000  for  an  outfit  for  the  minister  at  Con- 
stantinople ;  remarks  on  the  amendment,  which  was  agreed  to.  Votes  in 
favor  of  an  amendment  appropriating  $6,000  for  public  works  on  the  Hudson 
River.  Participates  in  the  debate  on  an  amendment  appropriating  $12,000 
for  the  purchase  of  an  island  at  the  confluence  of  the  St.  Peter's  and 
Mississippi  rivers.     (Id.  536.) 

July  18. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  substitute  for  the  resolution  extending  the 
charter  of  the  banks  of  the  District  of  Columbia  for  one  year.  Substitute 
rejected.     (G.  26  C.  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  539.) 

July  20. — Votes  for  a  motion  to  recommit  the  joint  resolution  to  con- 
tinue the  existence  of  the  banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia  till  March 
4,  1841,  with  instructions  to  substitute  the  bill  lately  rejected  by  the  Senate. 
Motion  lost.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  recommit  the  resolution,  with 
instructions  to  make  stockholders  subject  to  the  banks'  liabilities  to  the 
amount  of  their  stock.  Motion  lost.  Remarks  on  the  resolution.  Proposes 
an  amendment  declaring  the  banks  not  relieved  from  the  provisions  of  the 
act  of  July  3,  1840;  amendment  objected  to,  and  not  considered.  Votes 
against  the  resolution,  which  was  passed.  Offers  a  substitute  for  the  title, 
declaring  the  resolution  to  be  supplementary  to  the  act  of  July  3,  1840; 
substitute  adopted.     (G.  26  C  1  s.  1839-1840,  VIII.  542.) 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  recede  from  the  amendments  to  the  Army 
Appropriations  Bill.     Votes  against  the  motion.     (Id.   543.) 

December  7. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.  (G.  26  C.  2  s. 
1840-1841,  IX.  1.) 

December  9. — Appears  in  his  place  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  a 
quorum  of  the  Senate  being  present.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  1.) 

December  10. — Moves  the  election  of  a  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Commerce,  which  was  agreed  to.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  1.) 

On  announcement  of  the  standing  committees,  appears  as  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  and  as  a  member  of  the  Committee  on 
Manufactures.     (Id.  12;  S.  Doc.  3,  26  C.  2  s.) 

December  14. — Moves  reference  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
of  that  part  of  the  President's  message  relating  to  foreign  affairs,  which 
was  agreed  to.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  14.) 

December  15. — Presents  a  memorial  of  William  W.  Chew,  secretary  of 
legation  at  St.  Petersburg.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  18.) 

December  21. — Moves  reference  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
of  the  resolution  calling  for  information  relative  to  the  northeastern  bound- 
ary, which  was  agreed  to.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  40.) 

December  22. — Presents  a  letter  praying  for  extension  of  time  for  the 
payment  of  debts  of  the  Agricultural  Bank  of  Natchez  to  the  government; 
also  a  copy  of  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  in  Philadelphia  concerning  claims 
for  French  spoliations  prior  to  1800.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  44.) 

December  23. — Remarks  on  a  bill  establishing  the  pay  of  pursers  in  the 
Navy.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  49.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress.— s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


lxxxiv         THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  granting  a  pension  to  Hannah  Leighton.  Votes  in 
favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was  ordered.     (Id.  51.) 

December  24. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  Benton's 
motion  for  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  to  put  a  tax  on  paper  currency,  and  to  print 
the  bill.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  58.) 

*  December  28. — Remarks  as  to  the  committee  to  which  should  be 
referred  a  memorial  on  commercial  reciprocity  between  the  United  States  and 
certain  British  colonies.  Moves  reference  to  Committee  on  Commerce,  which 
was  agreed  to.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  59,  60.) 

December  30. — Presents  a  petition  of  John  Landis  for  the  purchase  of 
certain  pictures.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  65.) 

December  31. — Presents  a  petition  of  Stephen  Simpson.  (G.  26  C.  2  s. 
1840-1841,  IX.  71.) 

SENATE  (Continued),  1841. 

*  January  4,  1841. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  estab- 
lish a  permanent  prospective  pre-emption  system  for  settlers  on  public  lands, 
by  confining  the  benefits  of  the  bill  to  white  settlers ;  amendment  adopted. 
Remarks  on  an  amendment  excepting  aliens  from  the  provisions  of  the  bill. 
Votes  against  the  amendment,  which  was  rejected.  (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841, 
IX.  78,  Appendix,  22,  23-24.) 

January  5. — Presents  memorials  for  the  abolition  of  the  spirit  portion  of 
the  Navy  ration.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  81.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Pre-emption  Bill.  (Id.,  Appendix, 
23-24,  24-25,  26,  27.) 

January  6. — Presents  memorials  for  the  abolition  of  the  spirit  portion  of 
the  Navy  ration.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  85.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Pre-emption  Bill,  excepting 
therefrom  any  person  who,  owning  lands  in  any  State  or  Territory,  should 
quit  or  abandon  his  residence  on  his  own  land  to  reside  on  public  land  in 
the  same  State  or  Territory.    Amendment  adopted.     (Id.,  Appendix,  28.) 

January  7. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  legal  representatives 
of  John  J.  Bulow,  Jr.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  87,  88.) 

*  January  8. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of 
obtaining  copies  of  certain  British  Parliamentary  debates  and  of  British  land 
titles  concerning  the  northeastern  boundary.  (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX. 
91-92.) 

January  11. — Presents  petitions.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  94.) 
January  16. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  General  Bankrupt  Law.     (G.  26 
C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  104.) 

*  January  18. — Remarks  on  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  in 
relation  to  the  use  of  American  water-rotted  hemp  in  the  Navy.  (G.  26  C. 
2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  107.) 

January  19. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  a  motion  to  recommit  the 
bill  for  pre-emptions  to  settlers  on  public  lands.  Votes  against  a  motion 
to  recommit  the  bill  with  instructions.  Votes  against  a  substitute  bill.  (G. 
26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  112.) 

January  20. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  making  temporary 
provision  for  lunatics  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841, 
IX.  114.) 

*  Speaks  and  votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  pre-emptions 
to  settlers  on  public  lands.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  adjourn.  Speaks  and 
votes    against   an    amendment   limiting    the    bill's    operation    to    two    years. 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1841        lxxxv 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which  was  ordered. 
(Id.  114,  Appendix,  196,  197,  199-200,  201.) 

January  21. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  for  pre- 
emptions to  settlers  on  public  lands.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  116.) 

*  January  22. — Speech  defending  Van  Buren's  administration  against  the 
charge  of  extravagance  in  expenditures.  (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  117, 
Appendix,  106-111.) 

January  25. — Presents  a  petition  for  reimbursement  of  duty  paid  on 
hosiery.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  124.) 

January  26. — Presents  a  memorial  of  D.  W.  Prescott  for  refund  of  duty 
on  goods  destroyed  by  fire.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  126.) 

January  29. — Remarks  during  the  debate  on  the  bill  to  establish  a 
permanent  prospective  pre-emption  system  for  settlers  on  public  lands.  (G. 
26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  132.) 

February  1. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  completion  of  the  construction 
of  Erie  Harbor.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  135.) 

Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  silk.     (Id.  135.) 

Moves  to  lay  on  the  table  a  motion  to  discharge  the  Committee  on 
Commerce  from  further  consideration  of  the  memorial  for  the  erection  of  a 
new  custom-house  at  Philadelphia.     Motion  to  table  agreed  to.     (Id.  135.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Pre-emption  Bill.  (Id.,  Appen- 
dix, 104.) 

February  2. — Votes  against  a  substitute  for  the  Pre-emption  Bill,  to 
cede  the  lands  to  the  States  within  which  they  may  lie.  The  substitute  was 
rejected.  Votes  in  favor  of  Crittenden's  motion  to  recommit  the  bill,  with 
instruction  to  amend  it  so  as  to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public 
lands  to  the  several  States.  The  motion  was  lost.  Votes  in  favor  of  the 
passage  of  the  bill,  which  was  passed.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  138.) 

Remarks  on  postponing  the  consideration  of  the  General  Bankrupt  Bill. 
(Id.  138.) 

February  3. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  saddlery  and  harness. 
(G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  139.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  a  motion  to  print  2,500  copies  of  the  report 
of  Mr.  Plitt  on  post  office  administration  in  Europe.     (Id.  140.) 

February  4. — Remarks  on  the  General  Bankrupt  Bill.  Votes  in  favor  of 
Benton's  amendment,  requiring  the  assent  of  a  majority  of  creditors  to  grant- 
ing the  discharge  of  a  bankrupt.  Amendment  rejected.  (G.  26  C  2  s. 
1840-1841,  IX.  144.) 

February  5. — Takes  a  part  in  the  discussion  on  a  resolution  for  the 
transfer  to  Maryland  of  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal  stock  held  by  the  United 
States.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  147.) 

February  8. — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  passage  of  the  General 
Bankrupt  Bill.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  152.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  take  up  the  bill  to  continue  the  corporate 
existence  of  banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     Motion  lost.     (Id.  153.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  recommit  the  Bankrupt  Bill.  Remarks  on 
the  bill.     (Id.  153.) 

February  11. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  mail  route  in  Lancaster  County, 
Pennsylvania.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841.  IX.  160.) 

February  12. — Moves  reference  of  the  case  of  Samuel  R.  Slaymaker  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Post  Office  and  Post  Roads,  which  was  agreed  to.  (G.  26 
C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  165.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  to  authorize  th^ 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress. — s.=session. — *=  Printed  herein. 


lxxxvi  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

issue  of  Treasury  notes.  So  ordered.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill,  which 
was  passed.     (Id.  165.) 

February  15. — Presents  a  memorial  for  strengthening  the  defences.  (G. 
26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  175.) 

Takes  part  in  the  debate  on  the  bill  for  payment  of  Revolutionary  and 
other  pensioners.     (Id.  176.) 

February  17. — Moves  to  take  up  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  the  bill  for 
the  relief  of  Samuel  R.  Slaymaker,  which  was  agreed  to.  Remarks  on  the 
bill.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  181.) 

February  19. — Presents  memorials  for  a  duty  on  silk.  (G.  26  C.  2  s. 
1840-1841,  IX.  188.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  resolution  to  elect  a  public  printer.  (Id.  194-195.) 
Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone,  which  was  lost.     (Id.  195.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  Clay's  motion  to  take  up  his  resolution  for  the  repeal 
of  the  Independent  Treasury  Bill.     Motion  agreed  to.     (Id.  195.) 

February  20. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  resolu- 
tion for  the  election  of  a  public  printer.  Motion  prevailed.  (G.  26  C.  2  s. 
1840-1841,  IX.  198.) 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  take  up  bills  connected  with  the  Territories. 
(Id.  198.) 

February  22. — Participates  in  the  debate  on  a  request  of  Crittenden 
for  leave  to  introduce  a  bill  to  prevent  interference  of  Federal  officers  in 
elections.  Votes  against  granting  leave.  Question  decided  in  the  negative. 
(G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  199.) 

February  23. — Moves  reference  of  documents  in  the  case  of  C.  F.  Sibbald, 
which  was  agreed  to.     (G.  26  C  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  202.) 

Introduces  a  bill  to  amend  the  judiciary  acts.     (Id.  202.) 

February  27. — Reports  a  bill  for  relief  of  the  administrator  of  William 
A.  Slacum.     (G.  25  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  212.) 

Remarks  on  the  report  of  the  Judiciary  Committee  on  his  bill  to  amend 
the  judiciary  acts.     (Id.  213.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  to  reorganize  the  judicial  circuits  of  the  United 
States.  (Id.  215.)  Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  fixing  the  circuits  and 
terms.     (Id.  216.) 

March  1. — Remarks  on  his  motion  to  discharge  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  from  consideration  of  the  resolution  calling  for  correspondence 
relating  to  the  northeastern  boundary.     (G.  26  C  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  217-218.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Appropriations 
Bill.     (Id.  220.) 

Remarks  on  Mr.  Webster's  statement,  when  tendering  his  resignation,  as 
to  his  views  on  slavery.     (Id.,  Appendix,  332.) 

March  2. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Civil  and  Diplomatic 
Appropriations  Bill,  fixing  the  remuneration  of  certain  officers.  (G.  26  C. 
2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  222,  223.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Naval  Appropriation  Bill  for  lifeboats 
at  Rockaway,  N.  Y.,  and  Long  Branch,  N.  J.     (Id.  223.) 

March  3. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  incorporation  of  certain  pro- 
visions in  the  General  Bankrupt  Bill.     (G.  26  C  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  226.) 

March  5. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  take  up  for  consideration  the 
resolution  for  the  dismissal  of  Blair  and  Rives  as  public  printers.  Motion 
agreed  to.     (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  238.) 

*  March  8.— Remarks  on  the  resolution  for  the  dismissal  of  Blair  and 
Rives  as  public  printers.     (G.  26   C  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX.  238-240,  241-242.) 

♦Remarks  on  a  resolution  to  proceed  to  the  election  of  a  sergeant-at- 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1841       lxxxvii 

arms.  (Id.,  Appendix,  317.)  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone,  which 
was  lost.    Votes  against  the  resolution,  which  was  adopted.     (Id.,  Appendix, 

319) 

March  9. — Votes  in  favor  of  Benton's  amendment  to  the  resolution  for 
the  dismissal  of  Blair  and  Rives  as  public  printers,  declaring  that  it  was  not 
competent  for  the  Senate  to  annul  their  election  under  the  joint  resolution  of 
the  previous  session.  Amendment  rejected.  (G.  26  C.  2  s.  1840-1841,  IX. 
246.) 

March  II, — Votes  against  the  resolution  to  dismiss  Blair  and  Rives  as 
public  printers.     Resolution  adopted.     (G.  26  C.  2   s.   1840-1841,   IX.   256.) 

June  I. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841, 

X.  4.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  a  joint  resolution  for  a  committee  of  the 
two  Houses  to  wait  on  the  President  and  inform  him  of  the  presence  of  a 
quorum,  by  substituting  "  Vice-President "  instead  of  "  President."  Amend- 
ment rejected.     (Id.  5.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  motion  for  printing  the  President's  message.     (Id.  8.) 
June  2. — Receives   14  out  of  43  votes  on  a  ballot  for  chairman  of  the 

Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  Mr.  Rives  receiving  28 ;  receives  1  out  of  45 
votes  for  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Finance,  Mr.  Clay,  of  Kentucky, 
receiving  23 ;  receives  1  vote  for  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Manu- 
factures, Mr.  Evans  receiving  25  out  of  34  cast.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  11.) 

June  3. — On  the  list  of  standing  committees  of  the  Senate,  appears 
as  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  and  of  the  Committee 
on  Manufactures.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  12;  S.  Doc.  11,  27  C.  1  s.) 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  refer  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
the  part  of  the  President's  message  relating  to  foreign  affairs.     (Id.  14.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  repealing  the  act  for  the  collection  and  disbursement  of  the 
public  revenues.     (Id.  14.) 

*  June  7. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  calling  upon  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  present  a  plan  for  a  National  Bank  or  fiscal  agent.  (G.  27  C. 
1  s.  1841,  X.  23.) 

June  8. — Presents  a  memorial  of  E.  Littell,  presenting  a  plan  for  a  fiscal 
agent  for  the  Government.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  29.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the  repeal  of  the  Independent 
Treasury  Act.  (Id.  32,  33,  34.)  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a 
third  reading,  which  was  ordered.     (Id.  34.) 

*  June  9. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
District  of  Columbia  and  the  Territories.  Remarks  on  the  question  of  its 
reception.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  35.) 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  refer  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
the  part  of  the  President's  message  relating  to  foreign  affairs.     (Id.  36.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  adjourn,  made  during  the  discussion  of  the 
bill  to  repeal  the  Independent  Treasury  Act.  Motion  lost.  (Id.,  Appen- 
dix, 30.) 

June  10. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  silk.  (G.  27  C  1  s.  1841, 
X.  38.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  motion  to  refer  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
the  part  of  the  President's  message  relating  to  the  McLeod  case.  (Id.  39, 
Appendix,  14-18.) 

June  11. — Presents  a  memorial  for  fortifying  the  Delaware  River.  (G.  27 
C.  1  s.  1841,  X.-42.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


lxxxviii       THE   WORKS    OF    JAMES   BUCHANAN 

June  12. — Asks  and  obtains  leave  to  withdraw  the  petition  of  Margaret 
Shaw.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  44.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  resolution  as  to  unfinished  business.  (Id.  45.)  Votes  in 
favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table.  Motion  lost.  (Id.  47.) 
Remark  to  Mr.  Clay.     (Id.  48.) 

June  14. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  resolution  calling 
for  information  concerning  the  disbursement  of  sums  of  money  for  the 
emigration  and  subsistence  of  the  Indians.  Motion  carried.  (G.  27  C.  1  s. 
1841,  X.  50.) 

Remarks  on  the  motion  to  refer  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
the  part  of  the  President's  message  relating  to  the  McLeod  case.     (Id.  51.) 

*  June  15. — Speech  on  the  motion  to  refer  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  the  part  of  the  President's  message  relating  to  the  McLeod  case. 
(G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  52,  Appendix,  65-69.) 

June  16. — Moves  reference  of  the  memorial  for  the  defence  of  the  Dela- 
ware, which  was  agreed  to.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  56.) 

*  June  17. — Submits  a  resolution  on  removals  from  office.  (G.  27  C.  1  s. 
1841,  X.  63-64;  S.  Doc.  25,  27  C.  1  s.) 

June  18. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  communica- 
tion from  the  Governor  of  Maryland  on  the  subject  of  the  Chesapeake  and 
Ohio  Canal.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  70.) 

Moves  that  the  Senate  adjourn  till  the  Monday  following;  remarks; 
motion  prevails.     (Id.  70.) 

*  June  21. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  print  the  report  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  on  the  state  of  the  finances.     (G.  2.^  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  83.) 

June  22. — Votes  against  Clay's  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  motion  to 
print  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  in  Cincinnati  remonstrating  against  the 
creation  of  a  National  Bank.     (G.  2.y  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  86.) 

Proposes  to  modify  Clay's  resolution  for  changing  the  hour  of  meeting 
of  the  Senate  to  10  o'clock,  by  fixing  the  time  at  11  o'clock;  which  was 
negatived.     (Id.  86.) 

Remarks  on  his  resolution  relating  to  removals  from  office.     (Id.  83.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  Benton's  amendment  to  the  bill  to  extend  the  charters 
of  the  banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  by  prohibiting  the  banks  from  issuing 
paper  currency  of  a  denomination  less  than  $20.  Amendment  adopted.  (Id. 
87.) 

June  23. — Remarks  on  his  resolution  relating  to  removals  from  office. 
(G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  94.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  to  extend  the  charters  of  the 
banks  of  the  District  of  Columbia.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  motion,  which 
prevailed.     (Id.  97.) 

*  June  24. — Remarks  on  his  resolution  relating  to  removals  from  office. 
(G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  101-102.) 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  postpone  till  the  following  day  the  bill  to 
incorporate  the  subscribers  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  of  the  United  States.  Votes 
in  favor  of  the  motion,  which  prevailed.     (Id.  104.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  recommit  a  bill  appropriating  $25,000  for  the 
relief  of  the  widow  of  General  William  Henry  Harrison.     (Id.  no.) 

June  25. — Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  appropriating  $25,000  for 
the  relief  of  the  widow  of  General  William  Henry  Harrison.  (G.  27  C.  1  s. 
1841,  X.  121.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  to  incorporate  the  subscribers  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  of 
the  United  States.     (Id.  121.) 

June  29. — Opposes  and  votes  against  various  amendments  to  the  bill  to 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1841        lxxxix 

incorporate  the  subscribers  of  the  Fiscal  Bank  of  the  United  States.     (G.  27 
C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  124-125.) 

*  June  30.— Remarks  on  a  petition  for  a  National  Bank.  (G.  27  C.  1  s. 
1841,  X.  129.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill.     (Id.  129-130.) 

July  3. — Presents  a  petition  for  an  appropriation  for  a  light-house  at 
the  Delaware  breakwater.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  144.) 

July  6. — Votes  against  amendments  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill.  Moves 
adjournment,  which  was  agreed  to.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.   1841,  X.  152.) 

July  7.— Presents  a  memorial  for  a  Bankrupt  Law.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841, 

X.  157.) 

*  Speech  on  the  bill  to  incorporate  the  subscribers  of  the  Fiscal  Bank 
of  the  United  States.  (Id.  157-158,  Appendix,  161-169.)  Votes  in  favor  of 
his  motion  to  strike  out  from  the  first  section  the  words  "  District  of 
Columbia."  Motion  rejected.  (Id.  159.)  Remarks  on  a  motion  to  strike 
out  "District  of  Columbia"  and  insert  "New  Orleans."  Votes  in  favor  of 
the  motion.     (Id.  159.) 

July  8. — Votes  in  favor  of  various  amendments  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill. 
(G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  163-164,  Appendix,  122,  144.) 

July  9. — Votes  in  favor  of  various  amendments  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill. 
(G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  172,  173.) 

July  10. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill.  (G. 
27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  178.) 

*  July  12. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  incorporate  the  subscribers  of  the 
Fiscal  Bank  of  the  United  States.  (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  186-187.)  Votes  in 
favor  of  various  amendments.     (Id.  187.) 

*  July  13. — Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill.  (G.  27 
C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  192.)     Votes  in  favor  of  the  amendment.     (Id.  193.) 

*  July  14. — Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill,  providing 
that  nothing  in  the  act  should  be  considered  an  admission  that  Congress  has 
not  the  power  to  alter,  modify,  or  repeal  the  charter.  (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841, 
X.  197.)     Votes  on  various  amendments.     (Id.  198,  199,  200.) 

July  16. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  strike  from  an  amendment  to  the  bill 
authorizing  a  loan  of  twelve  million  dollars  the  clause  prohibiting  the 
redemption  of  Treasury  notes  not  due.  Votes  against  the  motion.  Votes 
in  favor  of  the  original  amendment.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  211.) 

July  17. — Votes  in  favor  of  various  amendments  to  the  Loan  Bill.  Votes 
in  favor  of  a  motion  to  adjourn.  Remarks  on  a  renewal  of  the  motion 
prohibiting  the  reissue  of  Treasury  notes  to  be  redeemed  in  the  future ;  votes 
in  favor  of  the  amendment  in  a  modified  form.  (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  221, 
222,  223.) 

July  19. — Remarks  on  his  resolution  relating  to  removals  from  office. 
(G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  226.) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  authorizing  a  loan  of  twelve  million 
dollars.     (Id.  226.) 

July  20. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill. 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841.  X.  231.) 

July  21. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  changing  the  place  of  trial  of  General 
Gratiot  from  Missouri  to  the  District  of  Columbia.  (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841, 
X.  233.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill.  Offers  an  amend- 
ment, which  was  rejected,  that  the  Bank  should  not  discount  when  the  notes 
in  circulation  and  private  deposits  exceeded  three  times  the  specie  in  the 
vaults.     Offers    another    amendment,    making   the    proportion    one    to    four, 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


xc  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

which  was  also  rejected.  Remarks  on  these  amendments.  Votes  on  various 
amendments.     (Id.  234,  235,  236,  237.) 

July  22. — Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  for 
changing  the  venue,  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  v.  Gratiot,  from  Missouri 
to  the  District  of  Columbia.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  240.) 

July  23. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  take  up  the  Bankrupt  Bill.  Votes 
on  amendments.  Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which 
was  ordered.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  243,  244.) 

*  July  24. — Speech  on  the  Bankrupt  Bill.  (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  245, 
Appendix,  205-207.)     Votes  against  the  bill,  which  was  passed.     (Id.  246.) 

Votes  on  concurring  in  several  committee  amendments  to  the  Fiscal 
Bank  Bill.     (Id.  246.) 

*  July  26. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill.  Votes 
against  a  motion  to  adjourn.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  249,  250,  251,  252.) 

July  27. — Presents  a  memorial.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  253.) 
Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill. 
(Id.,  Appendix,  202.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill,  providing  for  the 
establishment  of  branches  in  any  State  or  Territory,  with  the  consent  of  such 
State,  not  to  be  removed  without  the  assent  of  Congress.  Votes  against  the 
amendment.  Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which 
was  ordered.     (Id.  255-256,  Appendix,  213.) 

*  July  28. — Remarks  on  a  bill  to  carry  into  effect  the  treaty  with  Mexico. 
GG.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  258.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill. 
Votes  against  the  bill,  which  was  passed.     (Id.  260.) 

July  29. — Remarks  on  a  bill  providing  for  navy  pensions.  Votes  in 
favor  of  an  amendment  restricting  payments  under  it  to  those  persons  entitled 
under  the  laws  in  existence  before  1837.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike 
out  the  section  relating  to  pensions  of  officers  on  retired  pay  or  in  service  with 
full  pay.     Further  remarks.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  262,  263.) 

July  30. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  Bankrupt  Law.  (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841, 
X.  268.) 

Votes  against  several  amendments  to  the  bill  to  incorporate  certain  banks 
in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third 
reading.     (Id.  269,  270.) 

August  2. — Presents  a  petition  against  the  Bankrupt  Bill.  (G.  27  C.  1  s. 
1841,  X.  275.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Naval  Appropriations  Bill.     (Id.  280.) 

August  3. — Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  a  resolution  to  hold  execu- 
tive sessions  with  open  doors,  when  treaties  were  not  under  consideration. 
(G.  27  C  1  s.  1841,  X.  284.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  erection  of  fortifications 
and  the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities.  Votes  for  the  amendment.  (Id. 
285.)  Votes  against  several  other  amendments,  and  participates  in  debates  on 
them.     (Id.  288.) 

August  4. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  soda  ash  and  pipe-clay 
used  in  glass  manufacture.     (G  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  291.) 

Remarks  on  the  question  of  concurring  in  an  amendment  to  the  Forti- 
fications Bill.  Votes  on  various  other  amendments.  Votes  against  a  motion 
to  reconsider  the  vote  for  an  amendment  on  armed  steamers.  (Id.  292, 
293,  294.) 

August  5. — Makes  remarks  on  and  votes  against  laying  on  the  table  a 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1841  xci 

motion  to  print  a  memorial  remonstrating  against  the  acts  of  the  extra  ses- 
sion.    (G.  27  C  1  s.  1841,  X.  296-297.) 

Votes  against  the  third  reading  of  the  bill  to  continue  the  charters  of  the 
banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     (Id.  297.) 

Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  Fortifications  Bill.      (Id.  297.) 

Takes  part  in  the  debate  on  an  amendment  to  the  Navy  Pension  Bill. 
Votes  in  favor  of  another  amendment.     (Id.  298.) 

August  6. — Offers  an  amendment  to  the  Navy  Pension  Bill  to  limit  its 
operation  until  the  close  of  the  next  Congress.  Amendment  adopted. 
(G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  302.) 

August  7. — Presents  memorials  relating  to  duties  on  woollens  and  bleach- 
ing-powders.     Remarks  on  the  latter  subject.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  304.) 

Votes  against  sustaining  a  decision  of  the  Chair  ruling  Benton  out  of 
order.  Decision  not  sustained.  Remarks  on  the  appeal.  (Id.  304,  Appendix, 
192,  193.) 

*  August  9. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  relating  to  the  appointment  of 
additional  clerks  in  the  Land  Office.  (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  306,  307,  308-309.) 
Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  the  subject  on  the  table.     (Id.  309.) 

Remarks  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  distribution  of  the 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands.     (Id.  311.) 

August  10. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  print  the  memorial  remon- 
strating against  the  acts  of  the  extra  session.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  313.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  number  of  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands  and  to  grant  pre-emptions. 
(Id.  316,  317.) 

August  11. — Presents  a  memorial  in  favor  of  defences  on  the  northern 
frontier.     (G.  27   C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  319.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  bill  for  the  distribution 
of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands.     (Id.  320.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  take  up  the  report  of  the  Finance  Committee 
on  the  House  amendments  to  the  bill  repealing  the  Sub-Treasury  Act.  (Id. 
320.)  Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  bill.  Votes  against  several 
House  amendments.     (Id.  321.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  distribution  of  the 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands  and  to  grant  pre-emptions. 

August  12. — Presents  a  memorial  on  a  duty  on  silk.  (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841, 
X.  324.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  distribution  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  sales  of  public  lands. 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  strike  out  the  ten  per  cent,  given  to 
the  new  States.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  amendment.  (Id.  328,  328-329,  330, 
Appendix,  231.) 

August  13. — Votes  against  several  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the  distri- 
bution of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands.    (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  333.) 

*  August  16. — Remarks  on  the  disturbance  in  the  Senate  gallery  during 
the  reading  of  President  Tyler's  veto  of  the  Bank  Bill.  (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841, 
X.  338.) 

August  17. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  the  Bank  Bill  on  the 
table.     Motion  lost.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  341.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  distribution  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  sales  of  public  lands.  Remarks  on  an  amendment  giving  the 
Territories  ten  per  cent,  of  the  proceeds.     (Id.  341.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  consideration  of  the  veto  on  the 
Bank  Bill  till  the  following  day.     (Id.  342.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


xcii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

August  18. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  till  the  following  day 
the  consideration  of  the  veto  of  the  Bank  Bill.  Motion  prevailed.  Votes 
against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of 
the  sales  of  public  lands.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  the  bill  on  the 
table,  which  was  agreed  to.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  348.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Bankrupt  Bill.  (Id.  348.)  Votes 
in  favor  of  a  motion,  which  was  lost,  to  postpone  the  bill.     (Id.  349.) 

August  19. — Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  Fiscal  Bank  Bill.  The 
bill  was  rejected,  owing  to  the  lack  of  a  two-thirds  vote.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841, 

X.  352.) 

August  20. — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  Bankrupt  Bill.  (G.  27  C.  1  s. 
1841,  X.  354-) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  distribution  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  sales  of  public  lands.  Offers  a  motion  to  adjourn,  which  was 
rejected.    Votes  in  favor  of  a  substitute  bill.     (Id.  359,  360.) 

August  21. — Remarks  on  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the  distribution  of 
the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  364.) 

August  23. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  chloride  of  lime  and 
bleaching-powders.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  369.) 

Participates  in  the  discussion  on  a  resolution  for  the  purchase  of  water- 
rotted  hemp  for  the  use  of  the  Navy.     (Id.  369.) 

Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  a  resolution  fixing  the  day  of  adjourn- 
ment.     (Id.  369.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  consider  executive  business.     (Id.  369.) 

Votes  against  several  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the  distribution  of  the 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  post- 
pone the  bill.  Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading,  which 
was  ordered.     (Id.  369,  370.) 

August  24. — Votes  in  favor  of  indefinitely  postponing  a  new  House  bill 
for  a  Fiscal  Bank.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  372.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  motion  to  refer  the  bill  to  a  select  committee.     (Id.  372.) 
August  26. — Votes  against  Benton's  motion  to  recommit  the  bill  for  the 

distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands,  with  instructions. 
Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill,  which  was  passed.  (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841, 
X.  388.) 

August  27. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  relating  to  duties 
and  drawbacks.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  391.) 

*  August  28. — Remarks  on  a  House  amendment  to  the  Fortifications  Bill. 
Votes  against  an  amendment  appropriating  $50,000  for  defences  at  Buffalo, 
New  York.  Remarks  on  a  Senate  amendment  for  a  site  for  a  Western, 
Southwestern,  or  Northwestern  armory.  Votes  in  favor  of  insisting  on  this 
amendment.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  396,  397,  399.) 

*  Offers  an  amendment  to  the  Revenue  Bill,  to  repeal  laws  admitting 
railroad  iron  free  of  duty.     Remarks  on  the  amendment.     (Id.  400.) 

August  30. — Remarks  on  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  chloride  of  lime 
and  bleaching-powders.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  402.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  take  up  the  resolution  fixing  a  day  for 
adjournment.     (Id.  402.) 

*  Remarks  on  his  amendment  for  a  duty  of  20  per  cent,  on  railroad  iron, 
and  on  an  amendment  by  Huntington  that  iron  imported  prior  to  December  1, 
1841,  be  exempt  from  duty.  The  latter  amendment  was  adopted.  Votes 
against  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  this  amendment.  (Id.  402,  403, 
403-404,  404,  405.) 


G. = Congressional  Globe.— C. = Congress. — s . =session . — *— Printed  herein . 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1841  xciii 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  recede  from  amendments  to  the  bill  for 
the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands.     (Id.  4°5-) 

August  31. — Remarks  on  a  provision  in  the  Post  Office  Appropriations 
Bill  making  the  remainder  of  $150,000  a  contingent  fund.  Votes  and  speaks 
on  various  amendments.  Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill.  (G.  27  C.  1  s. 
1841,  X.  408,  409,  410,  411.) 

*  September  1.— Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  foreign  prints  and 
pictures.     (G.  27  G  1  s.  1841,  X.  413.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  for  satisfaction  of  outstanding 
Choctaw  reservations  under  the  treaty  of  Dancing  Rabbit  Creek,  of  Sep- 
tember, 1830.     (Id.  417.) 

*  September  2.— Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  bill 
relating  to  duties  and  drawbacks,  and  to  take  up  the  bill  to  establish  a  Fiscal 
Corporation.  Votes  in  favor  of  various  amendments.  (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X. 
418,  419.) 

Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  chloride  of  lime.     (Id.  420.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  to  establish  a  Fiscal  Corporation  of  the  United 
States.      (Id.  420-421,  Appendix,  340~344,  345_346.) 

September  3. — Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  the  proceedings  of  a 
meeting  in  Virginia,  disapproving  the  measures  of  the  present  session  of 
Congress.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  421.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Fiscal  Corporation  Bill,  declar- 
ing the  power  of  Congress  to  modify  or  repeal  it;  amendment  rejected.  Votes 
against  a  third  reading  of  the  bill,  which  was  ordered.     (Id.  423.) 

Votes  against  concurring  in  a  House  amendment  to  the  Fortifications 
Bill.     (Id.  423.) 

Moves  the  passage  of  the  bill  allowing  the  franking  privilege  to  the 
widow  of  President  Harrison,  which  was  read  the  third  time  and  passed. 
(Id.  423.) 

September  4. — Votes  nay  on  the  adoption  of  an  amendment  to  the  Revenue 
Bill,  to  exempt  tea  and  coffee  from  duty.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  adjourn, 
which  prevailed.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  428.) 

September  6. — Remarks  on  a  bill  appropriating  a  sum  of  money  for  the 
outfits  of  diplomatic  agents.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  429.) 

Votes  for  an  amendment  to  the  Tariff  Bill,  to  exempt  salt  from  duty 
after  June  3,  1842;  amendment  rejected.  Votes  against  an  amendment  by 
Calhoun,  which  was  lost,  to  limit  the  operation  of  the  act  to  articles  paying 
a  duty  of  less  than  20  per  cent.     (Id.  430,  431.) 

*  Offers  and  speaks  on  an  amendment  to  repeal  the  laws  exempting  rail- 
road iron  from  duty.    Amendment  adopted.     (Id.  430,  431.) 

September  7. — Takes  part  in  a  debate  on  the  bill  making  an  appropria- 
tion for  the  outfits  and  arrearages  of  diplomatic  agents.  (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841, 
X.  433.) 

Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Revenue  Bill.  (Id.  433,  434,  436, 
437-) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  an  amendment  to  the  Diplomatic  Appropria- 
tion Bill,  reducing  certain  allowances  for  outfits.  Moves  to  reduce  the  amount 
of  the  appropriations.     (Id.  437.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  Revenue  Bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill,  which  was 
passed.     (Id.  438.) 

September  9. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  take  up  for  consideration 
the  resolution  fixing  the  day  of  adjournment.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  443.) 

September  10. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  reso- 
lution for  the  employment  of  reporters  by  the  Senate,  which  was  ordered. 
(G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  446.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.= Congress.— s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


xciv  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  resolution  fixing  a  day  for  adjourn- 
ment, so  as  to  provide  for  the  appointment  of  a  select  committee  to  report 
a  bill  for  a  Fiscal  Bank.     (Id.  446.) 

September  11. — Requests  the  reading  again  of  a  resolution  establishing 
rates  of  printing  for  the  executive  departments.     (G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  449.) 

September  13. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  go  into  executive  session. 
(G.  27  C.  1  s.  1841,  X.  453.) 

December  6. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XI.  1.) 

December  14. — On  the  announcement  of  the  standing  committees,  appears 
as  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  and  of  the  Committee 
on  Manufactures.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  15.) 

December  15. — Presents  petitions  for  hospitals  on  the  western  waters 
of  Pennsylvania;  also  a  memorial  for  piers  on  the  Delaware.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  17.) 

December  20. — Remarks  on  Mangum's  request  to  be  excused  from  serv- 
ing on  the  Committee  on  Printing.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  30.) 

Presents  a  memorial  concerning  the  Bankrupt  Law ;  also  a  memorial 
of  the  Philadelphia  Chamber  of  Commerce  concerning  the  light  at  the  mouth 
of  the  Delaware.     (Id.  31.) 

Remarks  concerning  the  Civil  Appropriations  Bill.      (Id.  32.) 

December  21. — Presents  petitions  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.  (G.  27  C. 
2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  34.) 

Moves  reference  of  the  petition  of  Daniel  Kiss  to  the  Committee  on 
Naval  Affairs,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  34.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  motion  to  refer  the  bill  to  devote  the  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  public  lands  to  the  public  defence.  (Id.  41.)  Votes  in  favor  of 
a  motion  to  refer  the  bill  to  a  select  committee ;  also  in  favor  of  a  motion 
to  refer  it  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs.     (Id.  44.) 

December  22. — Presents  a  petition  for  the  improvement  of  Erie  Harbor ; 
remarks  on  the  subject.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.   1841-1842,  XL  46.) 

Opposes  a  motion  to  print  3,000  extra  copies  of  the  report  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  on  the  condition  of  the  finances.     (Id.  48.) 

December  23. — Moves  that  the  petition  of  Peters,  Moore  &  Co.  be  sent 
to  the  House  of  Representatives,  which  was  agreed  to.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841- 
1842,  XL  51.) 

Remarks  on  a  resolution  for  information  concerning  the  distribution 
of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands.     (Id.  52.) 

December  27. — Presents  a  petition  of  the  widow  of  J.  D.  Shaw  for  an 
indemnity  for  stores  lost  in  the  Essex.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  56.) 

*  December  28. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  refer  a  bill  to  postpone  the 
operation  of  the  Bankrupt  Law,  with  a  view  to  its  amendment.  (G.  27  C. 
2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  63-64.)  Votes  against  a  motion  to  refer  it  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Judiciary.     (Id.  64.) 

December  29. — Presents  petitions  for  the  alteration  of  the  Bankrupt 
Law.     Remarks  on  the  subject.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  69.) 

*  Speech  on  the  question  of  establishing  a  Board  of  Exchequer.  (Id.  69, 
Appendix,  43-46.) 

December  30. — Presents  a  memorial  against  an  appropriation  for  carry- 
ing into  effect  the  treatv  with  the  Seneca  Indians.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  75-) 

December  31. — Presents  a  petition  for  the  amendment  of  the  Bankrupt 
Law ;  also  petitions  against  confirmation  of  the  treaty  with  the  Seneca  Indians. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  81.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—  s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1842  xcv 

SENATE   (Continued),  1842. 

January  5,  1842. — Presents  a  petition  favoring  a  protective  tariff;  also 
a  memorial  against  an  appropriation  to  carry  the  treaty  with  the  Seneca 
Indians  into  effect.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  93-) 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  refer  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
on  the  subject  of  an  Exchequer  Board.     (Id.  93.) 

January  10. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  amendment  of  the  Bankrupt 
Law;  also  a  memorial  for  a  custom-house  at  Philadelphia.  Moves  for  per- 
mission to  withdraw  from  the  files  the  papers  of  Colonel  Johnson,  which 
was  agreed  to.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  109.) 

January  12. — Moves  for  leave  to  withdraw  the  papers  on  file  of  Samuel 
R.  Slaymaker  &  Co.,  which  was  agreed  to.  Presents  resolutions  on  the  sub- 
ject of  claims  against  France  prior  to  1800.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  120.) 

January  13. — Presents  and  comments  upon  a  memorial  for  the  location 
of  a  national  foundry  at  Lancaster,  Pennsylvania.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  124.) 

January  17. — Presents  memorials.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  136.) 

January  18. — Presents  and  comments  upon  a  memorial  against  action 
on  the  Bankrupt  Law.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  141.) 

Moves  reference  of  the  petition  of  Henry  Simpson  for  remuneration 
for  certain  services,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  142.) 

January  19. — Presents  a  memorial  against  action  on  the  Bankrupt  Law ; 
also  a  petition  for  the  amendment  or  repeal  of  the  Bankrupt  Law ;  also  a 
petition  for  the  improvement  of  Erie  Harbor.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  145.) 

Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  a  resolution  calling  on  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  for  certain  information  concerning  the  revenues  and  financial 
affairs.     (Id.  146.) 

January  20. — Presents  a  memorial  against  action  on  the  Bankrupt  Law  ; 
also  a  memorial  for  the  amendment  of  the  Bankrupt  Law;  also  the  petition 
of  Hannah  Hester  for  a  pension;  also  a  memorial  against  Sunday  mails  and 
the  distribution  of  mails  on  Sunday.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  148.) 

*  Remarks  on  memorials  in  relation  to  the  Bankrupt  Law.     (Id.  148.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Treasury  Note  Bill.  (Id.  150.) 
Votes  against  the  amendment.     (Id.  150.) 

January  21. — Presents  memorials  for  and  against  action  on  the  Bankrupt 
Law.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL   152.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  resolution  concerning  the 
revenues  and  financial  affairs.     (Id.  153.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  substitute  for  the  Treasury  Note  Bill.  (Id.  155.) 
Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill.      (Id.  157.) 

January  22. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  amendment  or  repeal  of  the 
Bankrupt  Law;  also  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  foreign  glass.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL   159.) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  Treasury  Note  Bill.     (Id.  160.) 

January  24. — Moves  the  postponement  of  joint  resolutions  for  amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution,  prohibiting  the  holding  by  a  Senator  or  Repre- 
sentative of  civil  office  under  the  Government,  restricting  the  veto  power, 
and  authorizing  the  appointment  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  by  Con- 
gress.   Motion  agreed  to.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  167.) 

January  25. — Presents  a  memorial  against  action  on  the  Bankrupt  Law ; 
also  a  memorial  for  the  repeal  of  the  Bankrupt  Law.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  168.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress.— s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


xcvi  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

January  26. — Presents  a  memorial  against  action  on  the  Bankrupt  Law ; 
also  a  petition  relating  to  discriminating  duties.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  172.) 

January  27. — Remarks  during  the  speech  of  Mr.  Archer  on  the  resolution 
to  restrict  the  veto  power.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  Appendix,  154.) 

January  28. — Presents  a  memorial  relating  to  the  duty  on  iron.  (G.  27  C. 
2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  185.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  bill  to  repeal  the  Bankrupt  Law.     (Id.  186.) 

January  31,  February  1. — Appointed  a  member  of  a  committee  to  take 
action  for  superintending  the  funeral  of  Hon.  Nathan  F.  Dixon.  (G.  27  C. 
2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  197,  199.) 

*  February  2. — Speech  on  the  joint  resolution  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion with  reference  to  the  veto  power.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  200, 
Appendix,  133-141.) 

*  February  3. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  for  the  appointment  of  a  clerk 
to  the  Committee  on  Manufactures.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolution.  (G. 
27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  204,  205.) 

February  7. — Presents  petitions  for  a  duty  on  iron ;  also  a  memorial  for 
locating  a  national  foundry  at  Lancaster,  Pennsylvania ;  also  memorials  for 
pensions  for  Mary  Levely  and  J.  D.  Fowle.      (G.  27  C.  2  s.   1841-1842,  XL 

213-) 

*  February  8. — Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  resolution  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  a  law  for  the  division  among  assenting  States  of  the 
shares  of  States  dissenting  from  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  public  lands.  Votes  for  the  amendment.  Votes  against  the  resolution. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  217,  Appendix,  146.) 

February  10. — Moves  postponement  of  the  order  of  the  day  for  the 
purpose  of  taking  up  a  bill  to  confirm  land  claims  in  Louisiana,  which  was 
agreed  to.     Remarks  on  the  motion.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  224.) 

February  14. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  iron;  also  a  memorial 
for  a  protective  tariff;  also  a  memorial  for  the  services  of  Judge  Baldwin 
at  the  district  court  at  Williamsburg ;  also  a  memorial  relating  to  finance. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  230.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  resolution  concerning  an  investigation  of  the  New  York 
Custom-house.  (Id.  231-232.)  Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  the  resolution 
on  the  table.     (Id.  232.) 

February  16. — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  execution  of  the  treaty 
with  the  Seneca  Indians ;  also  memorials  for  a  protective  tariff,  and  a  peti- 
tion for  a  duty  on  window-glass ;  also  a  memorial  against  the  admission  of 
slave  States  and  the  annexation  of  Texas.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  240.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  resolution  relating  to  claims  against  Mexico.     (Id.  241.) 
February  18. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  iron.      (G.  27  C.  2  s. 

1841-1842,  XL  250.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  Compromise  Act.     (Id.  250.) 

February  21. — Presents  memorials  for  a  protective  tariff;  also  petitions 
and  memorials  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.     (G.  27  C  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  256.) 

Inquires  also  concerning  the  report  of  a  select  committee  on  a  Board  of 
Exchequer.       (Id.  256.) 

February  28. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  protective  duty;  also  memo- 
rials for  a  duty  on  iron.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  265.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  to  suspend  a  part  of  the  bill  continuing  the  corporate 
existence  of  the  banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia.     (Id.  266.) 

March  2. — Presents  a  petition  for  a  protective  tariff;  also  memorials  for 
a  duty  on  iron.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  272.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


UNIVERSITY    1 
V  OF  J 

^•^^^^REER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1842         xcvii 

March  3. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  iron.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841- 
1842,  XL  277.) 

*  March  4. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  for  the  distribution  of  printed 
copies  of  the  laws  and  of  state  papers  on  public  lands.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841- 
1842,  XL  282.) 

Remarks  on  the  order  of  business.     (Id.  282.) 

March  7. — Presents  memorials  for  a  duty  on  iron.  Remarks.  Presents 
a  memorial  for  a  protective  tariff.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  288.) 

Remarks  relating  to  the  bill  to  suspend  a  part  of  the  District  Bank  Bill. 
Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table.     (Id.  289.) 

March  8. — Presents  and  comments  on  a  petition  on  the  claim  of  William 
B.  McMultrie.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  292.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  misrepresentation  as  to  his  age.     (Id.  292.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  resumption  of  specie  payments  by  the 
banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  (Id.  293-294.)  Votes  in  favor  of  recom- 
mitting the  bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table. 
Further  remarks ;  suggests  an  amendment.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to 
postpone  the  bill.     (Id.  295.) 

March  9. — Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  resumption  of 
specie  payments  by  the  banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  300.) 

March  11. — Presents  memorials  for  refunding  to  General  Andrew  Jack- 
son the  fine  imposed  on  him  in  Louisiana,  in  1815.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  309.) 

March  14. — Remarks  as  to  the  committee  to  which  should  be  referred 
certain  memorials  on  the  work  of  Congress.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  315.) 

Presents  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  favoring  a  protective  tariff;  also 
memorials  for  a  duty  on  iron  and  for  a  protective  tariff;  also  memorials  for 
refunding  the  fine  imposed  on  General  Andrew  Jackson.      (Id.  315.) 

March  15. — Remarks  on  a  bill  to  amend  the  acts  establishing  United 
States  judicial  courts,  with  reference  to  jurors.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  319.) 

March  16. — Presents  a  memorial  for  refunding  the  fine  imposed  on  Gen- 
eral Andrew  Jackson;  also  a  petition  relating  to  pensions;  also  memorials 
for  a  duty  on  iron,  for  a  protective  duty,  and  for  refunding  duties  illegally 
paid.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  322.) 

March  17. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  protective  tariff.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  327.) 

Remarks  as  to  the  order  of  a  bill  reviving  the  neutrality  law.     (Id.  327.) 

March  21. — Presents  memorials  for  a  duty  on  iron;  also  a  memorial 
relating  to  the  importation  of  spirituous  liquors;  also  memorials  for  a  pro- 
tective tariff;  also  a  petition  for  the  revival  of  the  Pension  Law  of  July, 
1838.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  340.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  resolution  introduced  by  him  at  the  last  session  on 
removals  from  office.     (Id.  341.) 

Remarks  on  his  vote  on  Clay's  resolutions  for  a  tariff  above  the  maxi- 
mum of  the  Compromise  Act,  for  the  repeal  of  the  provision  in  the  Distri- 
bution Act  as  to  its  suspension,  and  for  retrenchment  and  economy.  (Id. 
34i.) 

March  22. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  iron;  also  a  memorial 
for  a  protective  tariff.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  343.) 

Motion,  and  remarks  thereon,  for  leave  to  withdraw  the  papers  of 
Margaret  Jamison,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  343.) 

G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein, 
vii 


xcviii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Votes  in  favor  of  amendments  to  the  bill  amending  the  act  for  the 
distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands  and  for  pre-emptions. 
(Id.  344-) 

*  March  23. — Remarks  on  a  bill  assenting  to  a  tax  by  Illinois  on  lands 
sold  by  the  United  States.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  347.) 

Remarks  during  Clay's  speech  on  his  resolutions  for  retrenchment  and 
tariff  reform.     (Id.  Appendix,  327.) 

March  24. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  protective  tariff.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  351.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  removing  restrictions  on  pre- 
emption rights  to  public  lands.     (Id.  352.) 

Remarks  relating  to  the  resolutions  concerning  retrenchment  and  reform. 
(Id.  353.) 

April  5. — Votes  against  a  substitute  for  the  resolution  concerning  the 
distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841- 
1842,  XL  385.)  m 

Motion  during  a  debate  on  the  Loan  Bill,  for  adjournment,  which  was 
agreed  to.     (Id.  386.) 

April  6. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  abolition  of  slavery,  and  against 
the  annexation  of  Texas ;  also  memorials  for  a  duty  on  iron  and  for  a  pro- 
tective tariff.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  389.) 

Remarks  on  the  Loan  Bill.      (Id.  391.) 

April  7. — Presents  memorials  for  a  duty  on  iron  and  for  a  protective 
tariff.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1 841-1842,  XL  394.) 

*  Remarks  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Loan  Bill,  pledging  the 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands  for  redemption  of  the  loan.  (Id.  394, 
Appendix,  265-269.) 

April  8. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  brushes.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  398.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Loan  Bill,  pledging  the  proceeds 
of  the  sales  of  public  lands  for  redemption  of  the  loan.  (Id.  399,  Appendix, 
283-284.) 

April  9. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  duty  on  coal ;  also  a  memorial  for 
refunding  the  fine  imposed  on  General  Jackson;  also  a  memorial  for  a  duty 
on  iron.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  403.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Loan  Bill.      (Id.  405.) 

April  11. — Votes  in  favor  of  amendments  to  the  Loan  Bill.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  407,  408.) 

April  12. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  striking  out 
the  third  section  of  the  Loan  Bill.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  413.)  Votes 
in  favor  of  the  amendment  striking  out  the  third  section.  (Id.  413.) 
Remarks  during  the  debate  on  the  bill.     (Id.  414.) 

April  13. — Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  Loan  Bill.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  418.) 

*  April  18. — Eulogy  on  Joseph  Lawrence.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL 
43i.) 

April  20. — Presents  memorials  for  a  protective  tariff,  and  for  a  duty  on 
iron  and  on  flour  of  mustard,  and  in  favor  of  the  repeal  of  a  certain  pro- 
vision of  the  Tariff  Law.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  432.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  recommit  with  instructions  the  bill  to 
incorporate  the  Washington's  Manual  Labor  School  and  Male  Orphan 
Asylum.     (Id.  433.) 

April  21. — Presents  several  memorials  relating  to  the  tariff  and  to  slavery. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  434.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=  Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1842  xcix 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  incorporate  the  Washington's 
Manual  Labor  School  and  Male  Orphan  Asylum.     (Id.  435.) 

April  22. — Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  a  resolution  for  information 
concerning  the  difficulties  in  Rhode  Island.      (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL 

438.) 

April  25. — Presents  memorials  on  the  tariff,  on  defence,  and  on  British 
coastwise  navigation.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  440.) 

Remarks  on  a  question  of  the  reference  of  a  resolution  as  to  rebuilding 
the  light-house  on  Brandywine  Shoals.      (Id.  441.) 

April  26. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  higher  duty  on  wire.  (G.  27  C. 
2  s.   1841-1842,  XL  443.) 

Remarks  with  reference  to  the  bill  to  provide  further'  remedial  justice 
in  United  States  courts.     (Id.  444.) 

April  27. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  take  up  a  resolution  for  infor- 
mation concerning  the  difficulties  in  Rhode  Island.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  446.) 

*  April  28. — Remarks  on  the  Appropriation  Bill,  with  reference  to  the 
compensation  of  the  district  attorney,  clerk,  and  marshal  of  the  Southern 
District  of  New  York.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  450-451.) 

*  April  29. — Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Appropriation  Bill.  (G. 
27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  455.)  Votes  in  favor  of  the  amendment,  which 
was  adopted.     (Id.  456.) 

April  30. — Presents  memorials  for  a  protective  tariff;  also  a  memorial 
against  travelling  and  against  .  opening  the  Post  Office  on  the  Sabbath. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  458.) 

*  Remarks  and  votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Appropriation  Bill. 
(Id.  459,  460.) 

May  2. — Remarks  on  a  point  of  order  as  to  whether,  on  a  motion  to 
take  up  the  resolution  calling  for  information  as  to  the  difficulties  in  Rhode 
Island,  the  subject  is  debatable.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  motion.  (G.  27  C. 
2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  462,  463.) 

May  3. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Appropriation  Bill. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  468.) 

May  4. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  providing  for 
the  apportionment  of  Representatives  among  the  States.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841- 
1842,  XL  473-) 

*  Remarks  on  and  votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Appropriation 
Bill.     (Id.  473,  474,  475.) 

May  9. — Presents  a  memorial  for  higher  duties  on  saddlery,  harness, 
coaches,  and  house  furniture;  also  memorials  for  tariff  legislation;  and  a 
memorial  for  the  improvement  of  Erie  Harbor.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  479.) 

*  Speech  on  the  bill  to  provide  further  remedial  justice  in  United  States 
courts.     (Id.  480,  Appendix,  382-388.) 

May  10. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  higher  duty  on  umbrellas.  (G. 
27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  484.) 

May  11. — Remarks  with  reference  to  the  bill  for  the  apportionment  of 
Representatives  among  the  States.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.   1841-1842,  XL  487.) 

Remarks  on  the  International   Copyright  Bill.      (Id.  487.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  to  provide  for  remedial  justice  in  United  States 
courts.     (Id.  488.) 

May  12. — Presents  memorials  for  a  protective  tariff.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841- 
1842,  XL  492.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress. — s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


c  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  take  up  the  bill  to  refund  to  General 
Jackson  the  fine  of  $1,000  imposed  on  him  in  1815.     (Id.  492.) 

*  Remarks  in  favor  of  the  bill.     (Id.  493,  Appendix,  362-363,  365-366.) 
May   13. — Presents  a  memorial  against  reduction  of  the  duty  on  gold 

and  silver.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XI.  496.) 

May  17. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  take  up  the  resolution  in  relation 
to  affairs  in  Rhode  Island.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  506.) 

*  May  18. — Remarks  with  reference  to  the  Apportionment  Bill.  (G.  27  C. 
2  s.  1 841-1842,  XL  510.) 

Presents  memorials  for  a  protective  tariff.     (Id.  510.) 

Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  the  subject  of  a  resolution  declaring 
the  right  of  Rhode  Island  to  establish  a  constitutional  republican  form  of 
State  Government.     (Id.  510.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  the  bill  to  indemnify  General  Jackson  for  the 
fine  imposed  on  him  in  1815.     (Id.  511,  Appendix,  376.) 

May  19. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  refund  to  General 
Jackson  the  fine  imposed  on  him  in  1815.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  515.) 
Votes  against  a  substitute,  refunding  the  fine  and  declaring  that  the  act 
shall  not  be  construed  as  an  expression  of  opinion  upon  any  judicial  pro- 
ceeding or  legal  question  growing  out  of  General  Jackson's  declaration  of 
martial  law.  Votes  against  engrossing  the  substitute  for  a  third  reading. 
(Id.  515.) 

May  23. — Presents  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  in  favor  of  a  protective 
tariff.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  523.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  take  up  the  resolution  fixing  a  day  of 
adjournment.     (Id.  523.) 

May  24. — Remarks  with  reference  to  a  resolution  relating  to  executive 
business.     (Id.  526.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  Apportionment  Bill.     (Id.  527,  Appendix,  392.) 

May  25. — Suggests  passing  over  informally  the  resolution  relating  to 
executive  business  and  taking  up  the  Apportionment  Bill,  which  was  agreed 
to.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  532.) 

Votes  against  concurring  in  a  committee  amendment  to  the  Apportion- 
ment Bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  changing  the  ratio  of  repre- 
sentation.    Moves  adjournment,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  534.) 

May  26. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  removal  of  the  duty  on  quick- 
silver, and  for  enhancing  the  duty  on  tartaric  acid;  also  a  memorial  for  a 
protective  tariff.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  537.) 

Moves  an  amendment  to  the  Apportionment  Bill,  fixing  the  ratio  of 
representation  at  70,680.     (Id.  538,  539.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill.     (Id.  Appendix,  410-412.) 

May  27. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  alteration  of  the  duty  on  jewelry; 
also  a  memorial  for  a  protective  tariff.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  543.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  Apportionment  Bill.  (Id.  545,  546,  Appendix,  438- 
439.) 

Votes  against  several  motions  fixing  the  ratio  of  apportionment.  Votes 
in  favor  of  two  motions  fixing  the  ratio.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  fixing 
the  ratio  at  71,257-  (Id.  546.)  Remarks  on  a  motion  to  adjourn.  (Id. 
546.) 

May  30. — Votes  in  favor  of  reconsidering  the  vote  rejecting  a  motion  to 
fix  the  ratio  of  apportionment.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  548.)  Votes  in 
favor  of  a  motion  to  fix  the  ratio  at  70,680.     (Id.  550.) 

May  31.— Remarks  on  a  resolution  for  continuing  in  the  employment  of 
the    Senate   certain   employees   at   a   compensation  allowed   them,   and   con- 


G.=Congressional  Globe— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1842  ci 

tinuing  the  clerk  of  the  presiding  officer.  Moves  an  amendment  to  strike 
out  the  continuance  of  the  clerk,  which  was  agreed  to.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841- 
1842,  XI.  557.) 

June  1. — Remarks  as  to  taking  up  a  resolution  for  the  appointment  of 
a  corps  of  reporters.  Remarks  on  a  motion  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the 
table;  votes  in  favor  of  the  motion.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  560,  561.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Apportionment  Bill,  relating  to 
voting  districts  and  representation.     (Id.  563.) 

June  2. — Remarks  on  taking  up  the  resolution  for  the  appointment  of 
reporters  for  the  Senate.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  566.) 

June  3. — Remarks  on  taking  up  the  Apportionment  Bill.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  571.)  Remarks  on  an  amendment  relating  to  voting  districts 
and  representation.     (Id.  573.) 

June  4. — Remarks  as  to  taking  up  the  bill  to  carry  into  effect  the  com- 
pact with  Alabama  and  Mississippi,  relative  to  the  five  per  cent,  fund  and 
the  school  reservations.  Remarks  on  the  bill.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  576.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  amendment  to  the  Apportionment  Bill,  relating  to 
voting  districts  and  representation.      (Id.  577~578,  Appendix,  449-451.) 

June  6. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  protective  tariff.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841- 
1842,  XL  582.) 

Remarks  on  taking  up  the  Apportionment  Bill.      (Id.  583.) 

June  7. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  higher  duty  on  manufactured  tobacco. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  587.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Apportionment  Bill,  with  respect 
to  voting  districts.     (Id.  590.) 

June  8. — Remarks  on  the  question  of  the  reference  of  the  Army  Appro- 
priation Bill.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  595.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  taking  up  the  Apportionment  Bill.  (Id.  595.)  Votes 
against  various  amendments.     (Id.  597.) 

Votes   against   two   motions  to  adjourn.     (Id.    598.) 

*  June  9. — Votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  Apportionment  Bill. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  601,  602.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  further  consideration  of  the  bill. 
Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  603.) 

June  10. — Presents  memorials  for  a  protective  tariff;  also  a  memorial 
for  fortifying  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  607.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  Apportionment  Bill.     (Id.  608,  609,  611,  612.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  an  amendment.  (Id. 
613.)  Votes  in  favor  of  various  amendments.  Votes  against  the  passage  of 
the  bill.     (Id.  614.) 

June  13. — Presents  a  petition  for  pensions  to  officers  and  soldiers  who 
served  under  General  Wayne;  also  a  memorial  for  a  protective  tariff.  (G. 
27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  614.) 

June  14. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  provide  for 
the  armed  occupation  and  the  settlement  of  the  unsettled  part  of  East  Florida. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  624.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Navy  Appropriation  Bill,  concerning 
the  number  of  officers  in  the  Navy.     (Id.  626.) 

June  15. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  exemption  of  soda  ash  from  duty; 
also  memorials  for  a  protective  tariff.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  630.) 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  insist  on  Senate  amendments  to  the  Apportion- 
ment Bill  not  concurred  in  by  the  House.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  insist 
on  the  amendment  providing  that  such  States  as  have  a  fraction  of  more 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


cii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

than  a  moiety  of  the  ratio  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  Representative. 
Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  insist  on  the  amendment  increasing  the  ratio 
from  50,176  to  70,680.      (Id.  630.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Naval  Appropriation  Bill,  providing 
against  the  increase  in  the  number  of  officers.     (Id.  632.) 

June  16. — Presents  and  comments  upon  a  memorial  for  a  marine  railway- 
in  the  port  of  Philadelphia ;  also  resolutions  of  the  Pennsylvania  Legislature 
in  favor  of  the  Apportionment  Bill ;  and  memorials  for  a  protective  tariff. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XI.  637.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  to  extend  for  a  limited  period  the  present  tariff 
laws.     Votes  in  favor  of  reading  the  bill  a  second  time.     (Id.  638.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike  out  from  the  Naval  Appropriation 
Bill  a  proviso  against  the  increase  in  the  number  of  officers.  (Id.  639.) 
Votes  against  an  amendment  increasing  the  appropriation  for  a  naval  con- 
structor at   Pensacola,   Florida.      (Id.  641.) 

June  17. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  increase  the  appropriation  for 
the  Navy.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  647.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  providing  against  the  increase  of  officers. 
(Id.  647.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  such  an  amendment.  (Id.  648.)  Offers  and  comments 
upon  an  amendment  providing  for  a  marine  railway  or  floating  dock  at  Phila- 
delphia.    Amendment  rejected.      (Id.  648.) 

June  18. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  protective  tariff.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1 841-1842,  XL  650.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  order  of  business.     (Id.  655,  656-657.) 

June  21. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  take  up  the  resolutions  calling 
for  information  concerning  the  difficulties  in  Rhode  Island.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  660.) 

June  22. — Presents  memorials  for  creating  stock  to  be  distributed  among 
the  States,  based  upon  the  public  lands,  and  pledging  the  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  such  lands  for  the  redemption  of  such  stock ;  also  a  memorial  for  a 
protective  tariff.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  664.) 

June  23. — Remarks  as  to  the  reference  of  a  bill  fixing  the  fiscal  year  of 
the  United  States  Treasury.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  668.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  bill  to  extend  for  a 
limited  period  the  present  tariff  laws.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  adjourn. 
(Id.  670.)  Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  suspend  the  provisions  of 
some  sections  of  the  act  to  appropriate  the  proceeds  of  sales  of  public 
lands.  Moves  an  adjournment,  which  was  not  agreed  to.  Remarks  on  a 
motion  to  suspend  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  sales  of  public  lands. 
Moves  an  adjournment,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  671,  672.) 

*  June  24. — Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Tariff  Bill,  suspending 
the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  sales  of  public  lands  till  August  1,  1842. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  677-678.)  Votes  in  favor  of  striking  out  a 
part  of  the  amendment.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  amend- 
ment.    Votes  against  the  bill,  which  was  passed.     (Id.  678,  679.) 

*  June  25. — Remarks  on  the  Army  Organization  Bill.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  684.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  second  section  of  the  bill, 
relating  to  the  superintendents  of  certain  armories.  Moves  to  strike  out 
the  third  section,  abolishing  the  commissary-general  of  purchases.  Remarks 
on  his  motion,  which  was  lost.  Moves  an  adjournment,  which  was  negatived. 
Further  remarks.      (Id.  685.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress. — s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1842  ciii 

June  29. — Presents  memorials  for  a  protective  tariff.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841- 
1842,  XL  690.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  as  to  the  presentation  of  rejected  claims 
against  the  United  States.     (Id.  690.) 

*  Renews  his  motion  to  strike  out  the  third  section  of  the  Army  Organi- 
zation Bill,  abolishing  the  office  of  commissary-general  of  purchases.  Remarks 
on  the  motion,  which  was  negatived.     (Id.  692-693.) 

June  30. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  protective  duty  on  iron,  and  on 
cotton,  woollen,  and  silk  stuffs.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  697.) 

Remarks  on  the  provision  in  the  Army  Organization  Bill  relating  to 
rations.      (Id.  698.) 

*  July  1. — Presents  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  in  favor  of  a  protective 
tariff.     Remarks  on  the  subject.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  702.) 

Remarks  on  the  question  of  printing  a  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Manufactures  on  the  part  of  the  President's  message  of  December  7th  relat- 
ing to  the  tariff.     (Id.  707,  708.) 

Remarks  on  the  question  of  postponing  till  July  4th  the  bill  to  provide 
further  remedial  justice  in  United  States  courts.     (Id.  708.) 

July  2. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  creation  of  stock  to  be  distributed 
among  the  States;  also  a  memorial  for  a  protective  tariff.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  710.) 

Moves  to  lay  on  the  table  a  bill  to  authorize  the  importation,  free  of 
duty,  of  two  iron  steamboats  for  Western  waters.  The  motion  prevailed. 
(Id.  710.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  refund  the  balance  due  to 
Massachusetts  for  disbursements  during  the  late  war.     (Id.  711.) 

July  5. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  marine  railway  at  Philadelphia. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  718.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  to  settle  the  accounts 
of  Joseph  Nourse.     (Id.  719.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  to  increase  the  compensation  of  Federal  judges. 
(Id.  719,  720.)  Votes  against  several  amendments  to  increase  the  compensa- 
tion of  certain  judges.  (Id.  721.)  Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a 
third  reading.     (Id.  721.) 

July  6. — Votes  against  and  speaks  on  various  amendments  to  the  Judicial 
System  Bill.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  723.) 

July  7. — Remarks  and  votes  on  various  amendments  to  the  bill  providing 
further  remedial  justice  in  United  States  courts.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  729,  730.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.      (Id.  730.) 

*  July  8.— Remarks  on  a  motion  for  leave  to  introduce  two  bills  in  rela- 
tion to  the  tariff.  Votes  against  a  motion,  which  prevailed,  to  lay  on  the 
table  the  motion  for  leave  to  introduce  the  bills.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  734-) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  a  bill  to  incorporate  the  National  Institute 
for  the  Promotion  of  Science.      (Id.  734.) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  provide  further  remedial  justice 
in  United  States  district  courts.     (Id.  734,  Appendix,  558.) 

July  11.— Presents  memorials  for  the  creation  of  stock  to  be  distributed 
among  the  States,  as  the  basis  of  a  sound  currency.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841- 
1842,  XL  739.) 

July  12.— Presents  a  memorial  from  James  Reeside  for  the  payment  of 
his  claim.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  743.) 

G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


civ  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Remarks  on  a  bill  concerning  the  times  of  holding  the  United  States 
district  courts  in  Western   Pennsylvania.      (Id.   743.) 

July  15. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  an  edition  of  the  United  States  laws 
to  be  compiled  and  printed,  and  for  its  distribution.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 

XI.  756.) 

July  18. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  for  leave  to  introduce  a  bill  to 
repeal  the  Bankrupt  Act  of  1841.     (G.  27  C  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  763.) 

Moves  the  taking  up  of  a  joint  resolution  for  the  benefit  of  George 
Schnabel  and  Robert  Barber,  Jr.     Explains  the  resolution.     (Id.  764.) 

July  19. — Presents  a  memorial  of  James  O'Connor  regarding  his  steam- 
engine  improvement.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1 841-1842,  XI.  766.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  widow  of  William  Besly. 
(Id.  767.) 

July  21. — Speaks  and  votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the 
settlement  of  claims  growing  out  of  the  military  occupation  of  Florida. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XI.  772.) 

July  22. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  protective  tariff.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  776.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  reduction  of  postage  and  concerning  the 
franking  privilege.     (Id.  776.) 

July  23. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  settlement  of  claims  arising  under 
the  treaty  with  the  Choctaw  Indians  at  Dancing  Rabbit  Creek.  (G.  27  C 
2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  781.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  reduction  of  postage  and  concerning  the 
franking  privilege.  (Id.  781,  782.)  Votes  against  a  certain  schedule  of  rates 
of  postage.     (Id.  782.) 

July  25. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  settlement  of  claims  arising  under 
the  treaty  with  the  Choctaw  Indians  at  Dancing  Rabbit  Creek.  (G.  27  C. 
2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  786.) 

July  26. — Further  remarks  on  the  above  bill.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  790.) 

*  July  27. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  reduction  of  postage.  (G.  27  C. 
2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  796.) 

July  29. — Presents  documents  relating  to  the  steam-engine  improvement 
of  James  O'Connor.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  805.) 

*  July  30. — Remarks  and  votes  on  several  amendments  to  the  Tariff  Bill. 
Moves  to  strike  out  the  section  repealing  the  proviso  for  the  distribution 
of  the  proceeds  of  sales  of  public  lands.  Remarks  on  the  subject.  (G.  27  C. 
2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  814,  815.) 

August  1. — Votes  against  a  motion  for  leave  to  introduce  a  bill  reduc- 
ing from  five  to  two  years  the  term  of  residence  required  for  naturalization. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  817.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  House  substitute  for  the  bill  to  provide  for  the 
armed  settlement  of  a  part  of  the  peninsula  of  Florida.     (Id.  818.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  Tariff  Bill.      (Id.  819-821,   Appendix,   708-711.) 
August   2. — Votes    against    an    amendment    to    the    Navy    Pension    Bill. 

(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  826.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  his  motion  to  strike  out  the  section  of  the  Tariff  Bill 
repealing  the  proviso  for  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  sales  of  public 
lands.     (Id.  829.) 

August  3. — Votes  on  a  number  of  amendments  to  the  Tariff  Bill. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  834,  835,  836,  837.) 

August  4. — Votes  in  favor  of  several  amendments  to  the  Tariff  Bill. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  842,  844.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.  =Congress.— s.=session.—  *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1842  cv 

August  5. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  recommit  the  Tariff  Bill,  with 
instructions.  Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XI.  850,  852.) 

August  8. — Remarks  on  a  bill  extending  the  time  within  which  duties 
for  railroad  iron  imported  by  Michigan,  being  laid  for  permanent  use,  may- 
be remitted.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XI.  857.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  establishment  of  naval  schools.  (Id.  859- 
860.) 

August  9. — Votes  against  several  amendments  to  the  Navy  Pension  Bill. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XI.  863.) 

Participates  in  the  discussion  on  a  bill  for  the  establishment  of  police  in 
the  city  of  Washington.     (Id.  864.) 

Participates  in  the  debate  on  the  bill  for  the  establishment  of  naval 
schools.    Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.    (Id.  864.) 

August  10. — Remarks  on  the  bill  extending  the  time  within  which  duties 
for  railroad  iron  imported  by  Michigan  may  be  remitted.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XI.  870.) 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  bill  to  authorize  contracts  for 
steam  vessels  for  the  Navy.     (Id.  871.) 

*  August  11. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  reorganization  «of  the  Marine 
Corps.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  877.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  to  establish  police 
for  the  city  of  Washington.     (Id.  876.) 

August  12. — Votes  in  favor  of  postponing  indefinitely  a  bill  for  the  relief 
of  the  representatives  of  John  H.  Stone.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XI.  883.) 

*  August  13. — Remarks  on  the  Pension  Bill.  Votes  against  a  motion 
to  strike  out  the  section  allowing  pensions  to  the  widows  of  soldiers  dying 
after  the  acts  of  1836  and  1838.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a 
third  reading,  which  was  ordered.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  885-886.) 

August  15. — Moves  the  postponement  of  a  bill  for  adjustment  of  the 
claims  of  New  Orleans  to  lands  occupied  by  the  United  States,  which  was 
agreed  to.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  890.) 

Remarks  on  a  resolution  fixing  a  day  for  adjournment.  Votes  in  favor 
of  a  motion  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table.     (Id.  890.) 

Supports  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  John  Underwood.      (Id.  890.) 

Moves  adjournment,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  890.) 

August  16. — Votes  against  ordering  to  a  third  reading  a  bill  for  the 
relief  of  the  Springfield  Manufacturing  Company.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  893.) 

Supports  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Charles  F.  Sibbald,  for  false  arrest  by  a 
United  States  officer.  Moves  an  amendment  to  refer  the  claim  to  the  Third 
Auditor  of  the  Treasury  for  settlement;  amendment  agreed  to.     (Id.  894.) 

August  17. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  concur  in  the  report  of  the 
Conference  Committee  on  the  Army  Reorganization  Bill.  (G.  27  C.  2  s. 
1841-1842,  XL  003.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  the  bill  making  an 
appropriation  for  a  deficiency  in  the  Navy  Pension  fund;  motion  lost.  Votes 
in  favor  of  ordering  the  bill  to  a  third  reading,  which  was  agreed  to. 
(Id.  903.) 

August  19. — Demands  the  yeas  and  nays  on  a  motion  to  take  up  the 
resolution  fixing  a  day  for  adjournment.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  913.) 

Votes  against  a  resolution  to  recommit  the  Webster-Ashburton  Treaty. 
(G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  1.) 

*  Speech  on  the  Webster-Ashburton  Treaty.     (Id.  Appendix,  101-110.) 

G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.— s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


cvi  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

August  20. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  resolution 
fixing  a  day  for  adjournment.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1 841-1842,  XL  919.) 

Votes  against  retaining  the  8th  article  of  the  Webster-Ashburton  Treaty ; 
question  determined  in  the  affirmative.  Votes  against  retaining  a  part  of  the 
1  st  article;  question  determined  in  the  affirmative.  Votes  in  favor  of  a 
resolution  to  recommit  the  treaty  with  instructions  to  report  an  amendment 
for  the  safe  departure  of  vessels  driven  by  stress  to  any  of  the  British  West 
Indian  islands;  resolution  rejected.  Votes  against  retaining  that  part  of  the 
5th  article  relating  to  expenses  for  protecting  the  disputed  territory  and 
paying  Maine  and  Massachusetts  for  assenting  to  the  line  of  boundary; 
question  determined  in  the  affirmative.  Votes  against  the  resolution  advising 
and  consenting  to  the  ratification  of  the  treaty;  resolution  adopted.  (G.  27  C. 
3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  1-2.) 

August  23. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  grants  of  bounty  land  due  on  account 
of  the  services  of  Major-General  Duportail,  Brigadier-General  Armand,  and 
Major  de  la  Combe.  Moves  the  indefinite  postponement  of  the  bill,  which 
was  agreed  to.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XI.  927.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  take  up  the  bill  to  regulate  the  taking  of 
testimony  in  contested  election  cases.  Requests  the  reading  of  the  bill, 
which  was  done.  (Id.  927.)  Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  repeal 
the  act  for  the  apportionment  of  Representatives  according  to  the  sixth 
census.     (Id.  929.) 

August  24. — Votes  in  favor  of  amendments  to  the  bill  to  regulate  the 
taking  of  testimony  in  contested  election  cases.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  932.)  Votes  against  a  motion  to  'postpone  the  bill,  for  the  purpose  of 
taking  up  a  joint  resolution  fixing  the  day  of  adjournment;  motion  lost. 
Votes  in  favor  of  several  further  amendments.     (Id.  933.) 

August  25. — Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  a  resolution  calling  for 
information  as  to  the  possible  revenue,  had  the  Revenue  Bill  become  a  law. 
(G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  935.) 

*  Votes  and  speaks  on  a  number  of  amendments  to  the  Revenue  Bill. 
(Id.  936-937,  938.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  reading  a  second  time  a  resolution  concerning  the 
pay  of  members  and  disallowing  compensation  for  voluntary  absence.  (Id. 
939-) 

August  26. — Votes  and  speaks  on  a  great  number  of  amendments  to  the 
Revenue  Bill.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  943,  944,  945.) 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  adjourn.  (Id.  946.)  Votes  in  favor  of  a 
motion  to  adjourn.     (Id.  947.) 

*  August  27. — Remarks  on  the  Tariff  Bill.  (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842, 
XL  950-952.)  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading. 
(Id.  960.) 

August  29. — Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Fortifications  Appropria- 
tion Bill.     (G.  27  C.  2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  969.) 

August  30. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  resolution  for 
information  as  to  the  conferences  between  the  American  negotiator  and  the 
British  special  minister,  in  relation  to  the  payment,  assumption,  or  guarantee 
of  State  debts  by  the  United  States;  motion  lost.  Votes  against  a  motion, 
which  prevailed,  to  table  the  resolution  and  a  substitute  for  removing  the 
injunction  of  secrecy  from  the  proceedings  and  debates  on  the  treaty.  Sub- 
mits a  resolution,  which  was  adopted,  to  remove  the  injunction  of  secrecy 
from  the  proceedings  and  debates  on  the  treaty,  as  soon  as  the  treaty  shall 
have  been  proclaimed  after  the  exchange  of  ratifications.  (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842- 
1843,  XII.  2.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1843  cvii 

*  August  31. — Remarks  on  unadvised  legislation,  with  reference  to  the 
bill  for  the  relief  of  the  heirs  of  Major-General  Baron  De  Kalb.  (G.  27  C. 
2  s.  1841-1842,  XL  977.) 

December  5. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.  (G.  27  C.  3  s. 
1 842-1843,  XII.  30.) 

December  12. — On  the  announcement  of  the  standing  committees,  appears 
as  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  and  of  the  Committee 
on  Manufactures.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  40;  S.  Doc.  4,  27  C.  3  s.) 

Presents  a  memorial  for  the  exemption  of  unmanufactured  furs  from 
duty.     (Id.  40.) 

December  15. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  adoption  of  the  warehouse 
system  as  a  part  of  the  revenue  system.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  54.) 

December  19. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  exemption  of  hatters'  unman- 
ufactured furs  from  duty.      (G.  27  C.  3  s.   1842-1843,  XII.  61.) 

December  21. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  repeal  of  the  duty  on 
unmanufactured  furs.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  69.) 

December  22. — Presents  a  memorial  of  the  widow  of  James  Reeside  for 
payment  of  claim.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  73.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  calling  for  information  whether  the 
British  minister  made  any  proposition  for  the  assumption  or  guarantee  of 
State  debts  by  the  United  States.     (Id.  75.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  to  indemnify  General  Jackson  for  the  fine  imposed 
on  him  at  New  Orleans,  in  181 5.     (Id.  75,  Appendix,  69.) 

December  27. — Presents  a  memorial  for  refunding  General  Jackson's 
fine;  also  a  memorial  for  the  issue  by  the  Government  of  stock  or  certifi- 
cates of  loan  to  the  States,  as  a  basis  for  a  sound  currency;  and  a  memorial 
for  the  continuance  of  the  Bankrupt  Law.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  84.) 

December  29. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  repeal  of  the  Bankrupt  Law. 
(G,  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  94.) 

SENATE   (Continued),  1843. 

January  3,  1843. — Presents  a  resolution  calling  for  information  concern- 
ing cloth  cases  involving  forfeitures  for  violations  of  the  revenue  laws. 
(G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  104.)  It  was  adopted,  January  5,  1843. 
(Id.  118.) 

January  4. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  repair  of  a  pier  on  Reedy 
Island ;  also  a  memorial  for  refunding  General  Jackson's  fine ;  and  a  memorial 
for  clearing  obstructions  in  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  rivers.  (G.  27  C.  3  s. 
1842-1843,  XII.  no.) 

January  5. — Presents  a  memorial  in  favor  of  the  warehouse  system. 
(G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  118.) 

January  6. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  repeal  of  the  Bankrupt  Law. 
(G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  127.) 

January  10. — Remarks  on  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
in  relation  to  cloth  cases  involving  forfeitures  for  violation  of  the  revenue 
laws.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  140.) 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  print  the  report  on  General  Jackson's  fine. 
(Id.   142.) 

January  n. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  to  print  10,000  extra  copies 
of  the  majority  report,  and  20,000  of  the  minority  report,  on  the  bill  to 
refund  General  Jackson's  fine.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  149.) 

January  13. — Credentials  as  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  for  six  years, 
from  March  4,  1843,  laid  before  the  Senate.  (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843, 
XII.  158.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*— Printed  herein. 


cviii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

January  16. — Presents  a  memorial  in  favor  of  a  Board  of  Exchequer ; 
also  a  memorial  for  the  issue  of  stock  certificates  to  the  States ;  and  a  memo- 
rial of  Christopher  Doughty  for  a  pension.  (G.  27  C  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII. 
161.) 

January  17. — Presents  the  petition  of  the  widow  of  Philip  Krug,  a  Revo- 
lutionary soldier,  for  the  renewal  of  half-pensions  to  the  widows  of  Revolu- 
tionary officers  and  soldiers.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  164.) 

Remarks  during  a  discussion  on  the  destruction  of  steamboats  on  the 
Ohio  and  Mississippi  rivers.      (Id.  165.) 

January  19. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  Petersburg  Railroad 
Company,  with  reference  to  the  importation  of  railroad  iron.  (G.  27  C.  3  s. 
1842-1843,  XII.  175.) 

*  January  20. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  Petersburg  Rail- 
road Company.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  181-182.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  the  bill  to  repeal  the  Bankrupt  Law.  (Id. 
181.) 

January  23. — Presents  memorials  for  a  Board  of  Exchequer ;  also  a  peti- 
tion of  James  Gee  for  pension  arrears ;  and  a  memorial  of  Edward  Dexter 
for  indemnity  for  the  capture  of  the  schooner  Betsy  by  a  French  privateer, 
prior  to  1800.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  185.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  Petersburg  Railroad  Company. 
(Id.  187,  188.) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  188.) 

January  25. — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  repeal  of  the  Bankrupt 
Law.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  198.) 

January  27. — Remarks  on  resolutions  of  the  Delaware  Legislature  urging 
the  retrocession  from  the  United  States  to  Delaware  of  Pea  Patch  Island. 
(G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  211.) 

Presents  a  memorial  for  the  repeal  of  the  Bankrupt  Law.     (Id.  211.) 

January  30. — Presents  memorials  for  the  release  of  Mr.  Kendall.  (G. 
27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  210-220.) 

Presents  a  memorial  of  Samuel  Raub  concerning  his  invention  of  a 
mode  of  preventing  the  explosion  of  steam-boilers.     (Id.  220.) 

Suggests  postponement  of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  West  Feliciana 
Railroad  and  Banking  Company  and  the  Grand  Gulf  Railroad  Company, 
which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  220.) 

February  1. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  creation  of  stock  to  be  dis- 
tributed among  the  States.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  229.) 

Remarks  on  the  commitment  of  the  bill  for  the  occupation  and  settle- 
ment of  Oregon  Territory.  (Id.  230.)  Moves  adjournment,  which  was 
agreed  to.     (Id.  230.) 

February  3. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  repeal  of  the  Bankrupt  Law. 
(G.  27  C.  3  s.  1 842-1843,  XII.  238.) 

Participates  in  the  discussion  on  the  bill  for  the  occupation  and  settle- 
ment of  Oregon  Territory.  (Id.  239.)  Votes  against  a  motion  to  commit 
the  bill.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  clause  giving  a  bounty 
to  each  settler.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading. 
(Id.  240.) 

February  6. — Presents  a  memorial  of  the  Pittsburg  Board  of  Trade  for 
the  improvement  of  Western  rivers ;  also  memorials  for  the  reconstruction  of 
the  pier  at  Port  Penn  and  for  continuing  the  coast  survev.  (G.  27  C.  3  s. 
1842-1843,  XII.  243.) 

February  7. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which 
the  bill  for  the  occupation  and  settlement  of  Oregon  Territory  was  passed. 
(G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  252.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress. — s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1843  cix 

February  8.— Presents  and  comments  upon  a  memorial  for  establishing 
a  regular  line  of  packets  to  Chagres  and  an  overland  mail  to  Panama. 
(G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  255-) 

*  February  9.— Remarks  on  a  resolution  for  the  establishment  of  agencies 
for  the  inspection  and  purchase  of  water-rotted  hemp  for  the  Navy.  Votes 
in  favor  of  engrossing  an  amendment  and  reading  the  resolution  a  third  time. 
(G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  263.) 

Remarks  on  the  question  of  taking  up  the  bills  for  augmenting  the 
Marine  Corps  and  for  the  reorganization  of  the  Navy.     (Id.  263.) 

Moves  that  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  John  Gerald  Ford  be  laid  on  the  table, 
which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  264.) 

February  10. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  issue  of  stock,  based  on  the 
public  lands,  to  be  distributed  among  the  States.  (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843, 
XII.  266.) 

*  Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Army  Appropriation  Bill,  providing 
for  meteorological  observations.     (Id.  268.) 

February  13. — Presents  a  memorial  for  establishing  by  law  the  current 
value  of  German  coin;  also  a  memorial  for  an  issue  of  stock  based  on  the 
public  lands;  and  a  memorial  for  restoring  Mr.  Kendall  to  his  personal 
liberty  and  remunerating  him  for  losses.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  275.) 

*  February  14. — Remarks  on  resolutions  for  reduction  of  the  tariff,  re- 
trenchment, and  economy.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  282.) 

February  15. — Votes  against  laying  the  foregoing  resolutions  on  the 
table.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  289.) 

February  16. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  resolutions  con- 
cerning the  assumption  of  State  debts.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  296.) 

February  17. — Votes  in  favor  of  taking  up  the  foregoing  resolutions. 
(G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  299.) 

February  18 — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  the  resolutions  on  the  table. 
(G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  304.)  Remarks  with  reference  to  the  resolu- 
tions.    (Id.  306.)     Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  the  subject.    (Id.  308.) 

February  20. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  drawback  on  exports  of  dis- 
tilled spirits.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  311.) 

Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  resolutions  against  the  power  of  the 
Government  to  assume  State  debts  by  the  issue  of  stock.     (Id.  315.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  to  refund  General  Jackson's  fine.  Votes  against 
a  substitute  by  which  the  fine  was  simply  to  be  restored  to  General  Jackson. 
Votes  against  another  substitute,  refunding  the  fine  and  costs,  but  expressing 
no  opinion.     (Id.  316.) 

February  21. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  refunding 
General  Jackson's  fine.      (G.  27  C.  3  s.   1842-1843,  XII.  321.) 

Remarks  on  the  question  of  taking  up  the  Bankrupt  Bill.     (Id.  322:) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Navy  Appropriation  Bill.     (Id.  322.) 

February  22. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  resolutions 
against  the  assumption  of  State  debts.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  327.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Navy  Appropriation  Bill.     (Id.  328.) 

Gives  notice  that  he  would,  on  the  next  day,  ask  leave  to  introduce 
a  bill  in  relation  to  holding  a  court  in  the  Western  District  of  Pennsylvania. 
(Id.  328.) 

Remarks  on  the  question  of  fixing  a  day  for  the  consideration  of  Bayard's 
resolution  to  rescind  the  Expunging  Resolution.     (Id.  328.) 

February  23. — Introduces  a  bill  for  holding  a  court  in  the  Western  Dis- 
trict of  Pennsylvania.  On  his  motion,  the  bill  was  considered,  reported,  and 
finally  passed.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  331.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


ex  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Navy  Appropriation  Bill,  to  recommit 
the  bill  with  instructions.     (Id.  336.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  West  Feliciana  Railroad  and 
the  Grand  Gulf  Railroad  and  Banking  Company.      (Id.  33^~337-) 

February  24. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Mary  Crawford. 
(G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  341.) 

Participates  in  the  discussion  on  amendments  to  the  bill  to  repeal  the 
Bankrupt  Law.  Calls  for  division  of  the  question  on  the  amendments. 
(Id.  342.) 

*  February  25. — Votes  and  speaks  on  several  amendments  to  the  bill 
for  the  repeal  of  the  Bankrupt  Law.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the 
bill.      (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  347-349-) 

February  27. — Makes  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  bill  for  the  publica- 
tion of  the  Congressional  debates.     Motion  lost.      (G.  27  C.  3  s.   1842-1843, 

XII.  354,  3S5-) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  the  bill  indefinitely.  Remarks 
on  the  bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  recommit  the  bill.  Further 
remarks.     Votes  in  favor  of  a  number  of  amendments.      (Id.  356,  357.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  adjourn,  which  was  lost.  Votes  in  favor 
of  several  amendments.     (Id.  357.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table,  which  was  lost. 
Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  adjourn, 
which  was  lost.  Remarks  on  a  motion  to  postpone ;  votes  in  favor  of  the 
motion.     (Id.  358.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  go  into  executive  session.      (Id.  359.) 

February  28. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  extend 
the  charters  of  the  banks  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  Offers  and  speaks 
upon  an  amendment  making  suspension  of  specie  payments  ground  for  for- 
feiture;  amendment  agreed  to.  Votes  against  an  amendment.  (G.  27  C. 
3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  365.) 

March  I. — Moves  the  consideration  of  House  bills  on  the  calendar,  which 
was  agreed  to.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  370.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  the  bill  to  extend  the 
charters  of  the  District  banks.  Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill.  (Id. 
371.) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  a  bill  to  refund  to  Massachusetts  a  balance 
for  disbursements  during  the  War  of  1812.     (Id.  371.) 

Participates  in  the  discussion  on  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  widow  of 
Captain  William  Royall.      (Id.  371.) 

Remarks  on  the  order  of  business.     (Id.  371.) 

March  2. — Moves  to  table  a  resolution  concerning  losses  of  property  in 
Florida  Territory  in  consequence  of  the  Seminole  War;  which  was  agreed 
to.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  376.) 

Participates  in  the  discussion  on  a  bill  in  relation  to  records  of  land 
patents  and  other  evidences  of  title.     (Id.  377.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  to  authorize  the  reissue  of  Treasury  notes.  (Id. 
380,  381.) 

Remarks  and  votes  on  several  amendments  to  the  General  Appropriation 
Bill.     (Id.  382,  383.) 

*  March  3. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  pensions  to  the  widows  of  Revo- 
lutionary officers  and  soldiers.  Votes  and  speaks  on  several  amendments. 
Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (G.  27  C.  3  s.  1842-1843,  XII.  388,  389.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  insist  on  the  Senate  amendments  to  the  General 
Appropriation  Bill.     (Id.  391.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.— s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1844  cxi 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  bill  providing  for  future 
intercourse  with  China.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike  out  "  reciprocity  " 
from  terms  of  intercourse.     (Id.  392.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  concur  with  a  conference  report  on  the 
amendments  to  the  General  Appropriation  Bill.     (Id.  393.) 

Moves  for  leave  to  withdraw  the  papers  of  Mr.  McMurtrie  from  the 
files,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  394.) 

December  4. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.  (G.  28  C.  1  s. 
1843-1844,  XIII.  2.) 

December  6. — Presents  a  memorial  of  the  executrix  of  James  Reeside, 
concerning  a  claim  against  the  Post  Office  Department.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843- 
1844,  XIII.  13.) 

December  11. — On  the  announcement  of  the  standing  committees,  appears 
as  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  and  of  the  Committee 
on  Manufactures.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  22;  S.  Doc.  4,  28  C.  1  s.) 

Moves  reference  of  the  petition  of  Mary  Reeside  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Judiciary.     (Id.  22.) 

December  15. — Remarks  on  a  question  of  reference  of  an  act  of  the 
Missouri  Legislature  in  relation  to  the  boundary  between  that  State  and 
Iowa  Territory.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  36.) 

December  21. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  repair  of  piers  at  Port  Penn. 
Remarks  on  the  subject.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  56.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  to  settle  the  title  to  Pea  Patch  Island.     (Id.  57,  58.) 

SENATE  (Continued),  1844. 

January  2,  1844. — Presents  memorials  for  the  relief  of  American  citi- 
zens confined  in  British  prisons  during  the  War  of  1812;  also  memorials 
relating  to  French  spoliation  claims,  naval  pensions,  reduction  of  postage 
rates,  and  the  tariff.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  90.) 

January  3. — Presents  a  memorial  for  postage  reduction.  (G.  28  C.  1  s. 
1843-1844,  XIII.  96.) 

January  4. — Presents  and  comments  upon  a  memorial  for  the  completion 
of  the  works  in  Erie  Harbor.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  100.) 

January  8. — Presents  a  memorial  for  drawback  on  exports  of  spirits 
distilled  from  foreign  syrups;  also  a  memorial  for  continuing  the  works  in 
Erie  Harbor.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  115.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  resolution  for  correspondence  on  the  subject  of  the  title 
to,  and  occupation  of,  Oregon  since  March  4,  1841.  Votes  against  the  reso- 
lution.    (Id.  116,  117,  Appendix,  104.) 

January  9. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  a  resolution 
requesting  the  President  to  give  notice  of  the  abrogation  of  Article  III.  of 
the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  of  October  20,  1818,  relating  to  Oregon.  (G. 
28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  121.) 

January  10.— Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  bill 
to  settle  the  title  to  Pea  Patch  Island.  Participates  in  the  discussion  on  the 
bill.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  125.) 

January  15. — Presents  a  memorial  for  postage  reduction ;  also  a  memorial 
of  Peter  S.  V.  Hamot,  for  refund  of  a  sum  of  money  paid  by  him  on  account 
of  forfeiture  of  bail  given  by  him.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  143.) 

January  16.— Presents  a  memorial  for  a  dry-dock  at  Philadelphia.  (G 
28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  148.) 

January  18. — Presents  a  memorial  for  amending  the  Constitution  so  as 
expressly  to   acknowledge  Divine   Providence,   and   for  the  repeal  of   laws 

G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*==  Printed  herein. 


cxii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

authorizing  the  running  of  mail-stages  on  Sunday.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844, 
XIII.  158.) 

Remarks  on  a  resolution  to  postpone  indefinitely  a  bill  to  reduce  the 
tariff.      (Id.   161,  Appendix,  106.) 

January  22. — Presents  and  comments  upon  a  memorial  for  a  new  cus- 
tom-house at  Philadelphia;  also  a  memorial  of  Count  de  Grasse  for  assist- 
ance.    (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  171.) 

January  23. — Votes  against  printing  the  resolutions  of  the  Massachusetts 
Legislature  favoring  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  allowing  only  free 
persons  to  be  represented  in  Congress.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  176.) 

January  24. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  completion  of  the  works  in 
Erie  Harbor.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  181.) 

January  25. — Remarks  on  the  resolution  for  the  abrogation  of  Article 
III.  of  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  of  October  20,  1818,  relating  to  Oregon. 
(G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  191.) 

January  29. — Presents  a  memorial  for  postage  reduction.  (G.  28  C.  1  s. 
1843-1844,  XIII.  199.) 

January  30. — Presents  memorials  for  the  payment  of  certain  cancelled 
Treasury  notes;  remarks  on  the  subject.  Presents  a  memorial  from  the 
heirs  of  David  Noble,  for  commutation  pay;  and  a  memorial  relating  to  the 
application  of  customs  laws  to  canal-boats  passing  through  the  New  Jersey 
canal  line  with  coal.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  206.) 

January  31. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  completion  of  the  works  in 
Erie  Harbor.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  211.) 

February  5. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  exemption  of  railroad  iron 
from  duty;  also  a  memorial  for  the  exemption  of  canal-boats  from  the  law 
regulating  the  issue  of  coasting  licenses;  and  a  memorial  for  the  reduction 
of  postage.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  226.) 

February  7. — Presents  memorials  remonstrating  against  the  admission 
of  Texas,  relating  to  the  claim  of  William  D.  McMurtrie,  and  concerning 
the  claim  of  the  heirs  of  James  Vanuxem  on  account  of  French  depredations 
prior  to  1800.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  238.) 

February  8. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  completion  of  the  works  in 
Erie  Harbor.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  244.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  the  previous  orders  of  the  day 
for  the  purpose  of  taking  up  the  bill  to  refund  General  Jackson's  fine. 
(Id.  245.) 

February  13. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  foregoing  bill.  (G. 
28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  269.) 

February  14. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  dry-dock  at  Philadelphia;  also 
a  memorial  of  Robert  McGuire  for  compensation  for  injuries  sustained  while 
a  captive  of  the  Indians  during  the  war.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  273.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  third  reading  of  the  bill  to  refund  General  Jackson's 
fine.    It  was  so  ordered.     (Id.  274.) 

February  15. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  bill  for  the 
repair  of  Pennsylvania  Avenue.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for 
a  third  reading.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  282.) 

February  16. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  pension  for  the  widow  of 
Captain  David  Porter ;  also  a  memorial  for  exempting  canal-boats  employed 
in  the  coal  trade  from  paying  for  coasting  licenses.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843- 
1844,  XIII.  285.) 

February  17. — Remarks  on  a  bill  authorizing  the  transfer  of  appropria- 
tions in  the  naval  service  for  certain  purposes.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844, 
XIII.,   Appendix,   238.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1844  cxiii 

February  19. — Presents  a  memorial  from  Benjamin  B.  Ferguson  for  a 
pension;  also  a  petition  for  the  payment  of  the  claim  of  John  Houston,  a 
Revolutionary  surgeon ;  also  a  memorial  for  exempting  canal-boats  employed 
in  the  coal  trade  from  coasting  licenses;  and  a  memorial  for  a  custom-house 
at  Philadelphia.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  291,  291-292.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  to  purchase  copies  of  a  history  of  Oregon,  California, 
etc.     (Id.  293.) 

February  20. — Calls  for  the  reading  of  the  bill  to  extend  the  charters 
of  the  District  banks.  Remarks  on  the  bill ;  motion  to  recommit  it,  with 
instructions  to  add  a  provision  rendering  the  stockholders  liable  for  all 
their  issues.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  297.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  purchase  of  copies  of  a  history  of  Oregon, 
California,  etc.     (Id.  298.) 

Votes  aye  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  repairing  Pennsylvania  Avenue. 
(Id.  298.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  making  compensation  to  pension  agents.  (Id.  298,  299.) 
Votes  in  favor  of  several  amendments.  (Id.  299.)  Votes  against  ordering 
the  bill  to  a  third  reading.      (Id.  300.) 

February  22. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  calling  for  a  copy  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  court  of  inquiry  in  the  case  of  Alexander  Slidell  Mackenzie. 
(G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  305-) 

February  23. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  calling  for  the  correspondence 
relating  to  the  interpretation  of  Article  X.  of  the  Webster-Ashburton  Treaty. 
(G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  311.) 

Remarks  on  a  resolution  for  the  abrogation  of  Article  III.  of  the  treaty 
of  October  20,  1818,  with  Great  Britain.     (Id.  314.) 

February  26. — Presents  documents  relating  to  the  claim  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  John  Houston.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  319.) 

*  February  27. — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  repeal  of  the  duty  on 
railroad  iron.     Remarks  on  the  subject.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  326.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  authorizing  the  transfer  to  Mary- 
land of  stock  held  by  the  United  States  in  the  Chesapeake  and  Ohio  Canal. 
(Id.  327.) 

Remarks  on  the  resolution  for  the  abrogation  of  Article  III.  of  the 
treaty  of  1818  with  Great  Britain.     (Id.  328.) 

*  March  4. — Remarks  on  the  death  of  Mr.  Frick.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843- 
1844,  XIII.  338-339-) 

March  5. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  repair  of  the  piers  at  Port  Penn; 
also  a  memorial  for  the  re-enactment  of  the  Pension  Law  of  March,  1837. 
(G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  339.) 

Votes  on  several  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  certain  con- 
tractors with  the  Government.     (Id.  342.) 

March  6. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  settlement  of  Oregon  Territory. 
(G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  347-) 

March  7. — Moves  postponement  of  the  resolution  for  the  abrogation  of 
Article  III.  of  the  treaty  of  1818  with  Great  Britain.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843- 
1844,  XIII.  355-) 

March  8. — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  alteration  of  the  tariff  of 
1842.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  358.) 

March  11. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  adjourn.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844, 
XIII.  366.) 

*  March  12. — Speech  on  the  resolution  for  the  abrogation  of  Article  III. 
of  the  treaty  of  1818  with  Great  Britain.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XII.  369- 
373,  Appendix,  345~350.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein, 
viii 


oxiv  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

March  13. — Presents  memorials  against  any  alteration  of  the  tariff  of 
1842 ;  also  a  memorial  for  the  repair  of  the  piers  at  Port  Penn. 

*  Presents  a  memorial  on  religious  matters;  remarks  thereon.  (G.  28  C. 
1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  376.) 

Moves  for  leave  to  withdraw  the  petition  of  G.  T.  Byer,  which  was 
agreed  to.     (Id.  376.) 

March  15. — Votes  in  favor  of  several  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the 
improvement  of  the  Fox  and  Wisconsin  rivers.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844, 
XIII.  389,  390.) 

Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  a  bill  to  repeal  certain  sections  of  the 
Distribution  Act.      (Id.  391.) 

March  18. — Presents  a  petition  from  the  widow  of  Condy  Raguet  for 
compensation  for  diplomatic  services  rendered  by  her  husband  as  consul 
and  charge  in  Brazil;  also  a  petition  against  any  alteration  of  the  tariff  of 
1842.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  394.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  resolution  for  the  abrogation  of  Article  III.  of  the 
treaty  of  1818  with  Great  Britain.     (Id.  396,  398-399.) 

*  March  19. — Remarks  on  the  foregoing  resolution.  (G.  28  C.  1  s. 
1843-1844,  XIII.  407-) 

Presents  the  memorial  of  James  P.  Espy  concerning  an  invention.     (Id. 

404.) 

*  March  20. — Remarks  on  the  resolution  for  the  abrogation  of  Article 
III.  of  the  treaty  of  1818  with  Great  Britain.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII. 
411-413,  413-414,  Appendix,  350-352.) 

March  21. — Presents  memorials  against  the  alteration  of  the  tariff  of 
1842 ;  also  a  memorial  of  W.  B.  Vaughan  for  an  extension  of  time  to  com- 
plete his  contract  with  the  Government;  and  memorials  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  415-416.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  adopting  the  resolution  for  the  abrogation  of  Article 
III.  of  the  treaty  of  1818  with  Great  Britain.     (Id.  418,  Appendix,  310.) 

March  22. — Presents  memorials  against  any  alteration  of  the  tariff  of 
1842.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  421.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Pension  Bill.     (Id.  421.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  reduction  of  postage  and  the  limiting  of 
the  franking  privilege.     (Id.  423.) 

March  26. — Presents  a  number  of  memorials  on  different  subjects.  (G. 
28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  436.) 

March  29. — Presents  a  memorial  against  any  alteration  of  the  tariff;  also 
a  memorial  in  favor  of  the  annexation  of  Texas.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844, 
XIII.  457.) 

Presents  a  memorial  of  T.  and  J.  W.  Johnson  offering  for  sale  copies 
of  laws  of  the  United  States.     (Id.  459.) 

April  1.— Presents  a  memorial  of  J.  Sellers  and  Abm.  L.  Pennock  con- 
cerning a  claim  for  bags  furnished  to  the  Post  Office  Department ;  also  memo- 
rials against  any  alteration  of  the  tariff  of  1842.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844, 
XIII.  465.) 

April  2. — Participates  in  the  discussion  on  a  motion  to  refer  a  bill  for 
the  establishment  of  a  new  collection  district  in  Florida.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843- 
1844,  XIII.  469.) 

April  3. — Presents  memorials  against  any  alteration  of  the  tariff;  also  a 
memorial  on  religious  matters.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  473.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  support  of  the  Military  Academy  at  West 
Point.    Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  474.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.==session.—*==  Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1844  cxv 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Fortifications  Appropriation  Bill. 
(Id.  474) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  continuation  of  the  Cumberland  Road  in 
Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois.     (Id.  475.) 

April  4. — Presents  memorials  against  any  alteration  of  the  tariff;  also  a 
petition  of  Eliza  M.  Cloud  for  a  pension.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII. 
478.) 

April  5. — Presents  a  memorial  against  any  alteration  of  the  tariff ;  also 
a  memorial  against  the  annexation  of  Texas.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844, 
XIII.  482.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  to  indemnify  naval  officers  and  seamen  for  property 
lost  in  wrecks.     (Id.  483-484.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  Cumberland  Road  Bill.     (Id.  484.) 

April  9. — Presents  memorials  against  alteration  of  the  tariff;  also  a 
memorial  for  the  erection  of  a  monument  to  the  memory  of  certain  soldiers 
who  fought  at  the  Brandywine  in  1777.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  491.) 

April  10. — Presents  memorials  against  alteration  of  the  tariff  of  1842. 
(G.  28  C  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  408.) 

April  11. — Presents  a  memorial  for  reduction  of  the  duty  on  sugar; 
also  memorials  against  alteration  of  the  tariff;  and  a  memorial  for  restoring 
four  companies  of  artillery  in  service  to  the  peace  establishment  of  100  men. 
(G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  505.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  substitute  for  a  bill  to  establish  a  naval  depot  at 
or  adjacent  to  Memphis,  providing  for  an  investigation  and  report  on  certain 
other  places.     (Id.  508.) 

April  12. — Presents  a  memorial  against  any  alteration  of  the  tariff.  (G. 
28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  510.) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  establishing  a  naval  depot  at 
Memphis.     (Id.  511.) 

April  15. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  reduction  of  postage ;  also  memo- 
rials against  change  in  the  tariff;  and  a  memorial  against  the  annexation  of 
Texas.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  515.) 

April  16. — Remarks  on  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  a  bill  for  the 
reduction  of  postage  and  the  limiting  of  the  franking  privilege.  (G.  28  C. 
1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  522.) 

April  17. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  and  against 
the  annexation  of  Texas.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  524.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  reduction  of  postage  and  the  limiting  of 
the  franking  privilege.  (Id.  525,  526.)  Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike 
out  the  9th  section,  which  substitutes  a  given  number  of  free  stamps  for 
the  franking  privilege.      (Id.   526.) 

*  April  18. — Remarks  on  a  bill  to  purchase  copies  of  Greenhow's  History 
of  Oregon.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  531-532.)  Votes  in  favor  of 
engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  532.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  reduce  postage.  Remarks  on 
an  amendment  to  limit  the  force  of  the  bill.     (Id.  533.) 

April  19. — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  annexation  of  Texas;  also 
the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  opposed  to  any  alteration  of  the  tariff  of  1842. 
(G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  536.) 

Remarks  on  the  question  of  taking  up  the  bill  to  reduce  postage.  (Id. 
537.)  Further  remarks.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  take  up  the  bill.  (Id. 
537.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  take  up  a  resolution  to  postpone  indefinitelv 
the  bill  in  relation  to  the  tariff.     (Id.  537.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.— s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


cxvi  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

April  22. — Presents  memorials  and  resolutions  for  and  against  the  annex- 
ation of  Texas ;  also  memorials  against  any  alteration  of  the  tariff  of  1842. 
(G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  542.) 

April  23. — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  annexation  of  Texas.  (G. 
28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  546.) 

Remarks  on  several  amendments  to  the  bill  to  reduce  postage.  (Id. 
547,  548.) 

April  24. — Presents  memorials  against  any  change  in  the  tariff  of  1842. 
(G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  554.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill  to  reduce  postage.  Votes  on  several  amendments. 
(Id.  554,  555.)  Further  remarks  on  the  bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing 
the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  556.) 

April  29. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  redemption  of  certain  cancelled 
Treasury  notes.  Moves  leave  to  withdraw  the  petition  of  Mrs.  Agnes  Slack. 
(G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  562.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  bill  to  reduce  postage  and  limit  the  franking 
privilege.     (Id.  562.) 

April  30. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  right  of  John  M. 
Niles  to  a  seat  as  a  Senator  from  Connecticut.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844, 
XIII.  565.) 

May  1. — Presents  memorials  for  and  against  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
(G.  28  C  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  569.) 

*  May  8. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  extend  the  charters  of  the  District 
banks.  Votes  against  an  amendment.  Offers  an  amendment  (to  an  amend- 
ment) requiring  the  keeping  of  a  list  of  stockholders  for  public  inspection 
and  publication ;  amendment  adopted.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  original  amend- 
ment.    (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  585,  586.) 

May  9. — Presents  memorials  in  favor  of  the  annexation  of  Texas.  (G. 
28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  588.) 

May  13. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  annexation  of  Texas.  (G.  28  C. 
1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  592.) 

Moves  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  extend  the  charters  of  the  District 
banks  in  regard  to  the  choice  of  trustees  in  case  of  failure.  Remarks  on 
the  amendment,  which  was  adopted.  (Id.  593.)  Votes  in  favor  of  concurring 
in  the  amendments  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Votes  in  favor  of  the 
passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  593.) 

May  14. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  fixing  the  day  of  adjournment.  (G. 
28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844*  XIII.  597.) 

May  15. — Presents  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  in  favor  of  the  annexa- 
tion of  Texas.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  598.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  directors  of  the  New  England 
Mississippi  Land  Company.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third 
reading.     (Id.  599.) 

May  16. — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  annexation  of  Texas.  (G. 
28  C  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  602.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  directors 
of  the  New  England  Mississippi  Land  Company.     (Id.  603.) 

May  17. — Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  a  resolution  fixing  the  day 
of  adjournment.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  607.) 

May  18. — Presents  the  memorial  of  John  Shaw  concerning  his  invention 
of  a  percussion  cap  for  cannon  and  small  arms;  also  a  memorial  for  the 
annexation  of  Texas.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  608.) 

May  21. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  law  fixing  one  day  for  the  election 
of  President  and  Vice-President.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  611.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress— s.=session.— *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1844         cxvii 

May  22. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  indefinitely  a  bill  regu- 
lating the  pay  of  the  Army.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  615.) 

May  23. — Remarks  with  reference  to  the  bill  for  the  payment  of  redeemed 
Treasury  notes  afterwards  stolen.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  617.) 

May  24. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  requesting  the  return  from  the 
House  to  the  Senate  of  the  bill  regulating  the  pay  of  the  Army.  (G.  28  C. 
1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  619.) 

May  25. — Presents  memorials  for  the  annexation  of  Texas.  (G.  28  C. 
1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  622.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  the  resolution  fixing  a  day  for 
adjournment.     (Id.  623.) 

May  28. — Presents  a  petition  against  the  annexation  of  Texas;  also  a 
petition  for  the  restoration  of  certain  companies  of  horse  artillery  to  their 
standard  prior  to  1842;  and  memorials  of  Alice  Pew  and  Sarah  Seales  for 
pensions.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  628.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Naval  Pension  Bill.     (Id.  628.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  relating  to  certain  collection  districts.  (Id.  628, 
629.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  heirs  of 
Robert  Fulton.     (Id.  629.) 

May  29. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  annexation  of  Texas.  (G.  28  C. 
1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  630.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  recommit  a  bill  authorizing  the  opening  of  a 
canal  around  the  Falls  of  St.  Mary.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the 
bill.     (Id.  630.) 

May  31. — Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  resolution  to  postpone 
indefinitely  the  bill  for  restoring  the  tariff  to  the  standard  of  the  Compromise 
Act.    Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolution.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1 843-1844,  XIII.  633.) 

*  June  1. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  alteration  of  the  naturalization 
laws.     Remarks  on  the  subject.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  634-635.) 

Remarks  with  reference  to  a  bill  making  appropriations  for  certain 
Western  harbors  and  rivers.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill. 
(Id.  635.)    _ 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  a  bill  making  appropriations  for 
certain  Eastern  harbors  and  rivers.  Moves  an  amendment,  and  remarks 
thereon,  to  appropriate  $500  for  the  repairs  at  the  Marcus  Hook  pier ;  amend- 
ment rejected.     Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  635.) 

June  3. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  alteration  of  the  naturalization 
laws.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1 843-1844,  XIII.  636.) 

Remarks  on  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  memorial  from  the  Society 
of  Friends  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  (Id.  637.)  Votes  against  the  motion. 
(Id.  638.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  adjust  the  title  to  Pea  Patch 
Island.      (Id.  638.) 

Remarks  with  reference  to  the  petition  of  A.  H.  Johnson.   (Id.  638.) 

Participates  in  the  discussion  on  the  claim  of  James  Reeside.     (Id.  638.) 

June  5- — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  to 
adjust  the  title  to  Pea  Patch  Island.     (G.  28  C  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  643.) 

June  6. — Votes  in  favor  of  laying  on  the  table  the  question  of  the  recep- 
tion of  a  memorial  remonstrating  against  the  annexation  of  Texas.  Votes 
in  favor  of  the  reception  of  the  memorial.  (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII. 
647.) 

June  8. — Presents  memorials  for  the  alteration  of  the  naturalization 
laws ;  also  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  adverse  to  the  annexation  of  Texas  ; 

G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


cxviii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

and  memorials  of  Anne  Houston  and  Elizabeth   Smith  for  pensions.      (G. 
28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  651.) 

*  Speech  on  the  treaty  for  the  annexation  of  Texas.      (Id.   Appendix, 

720-727.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  advising  and  consenting  to  its  ratification.     (Id.  652.) 

June  11. — Presents  memorials  for  the  alteration  of  the  naturalization 
laws;  also  a  memorial  for  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  for  annexing  Texas, 
or  for  the  admission  of  Texas  as  a  Territory.  (G.  28  C  1  s.  1843-1844, 
XIII.  658.) 

Remarks  on  memorials  for  the  alteration  of  the  naturalization  laws. 
(Id.  658,  659.) 

Offers  a  resolution,  which  was  adopted,  for  inquiring  into  the  expediency 
of  purchasing  a  certain  banking-house  in  Philadelphia  for  a  custom-house. 
(Id.  660.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  joint  resolution  for  the 
annexation  of  Texas.      (Id.  661.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  bill  providing  for  the 
remission  of  duties  on  railroad  iron.      (Id.  661.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill.     (Id.  661,  Appendix,  680-682.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  662.) 

June  12. — Remarks  on  the  period  of  the  session  left  for  the  transaction 
of  business.  Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  joint  resolution  for  the 
relief  of  certain  claimants  under  the  Cherokee  treaty  of  1836.  (G.  28  C.  1  s. 
1843-1844,  XIII.  668,  669.) 

Remarks  on  the  despatch  of  business  before  the  Senate.  Participates 
in  the  debate  on  the  Reeside  Claim  Bill.  Votes  against  an  amendment. 
(Id.  669.) 

June  13. — Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  George  Wentling.  (G. 
28  C  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  672.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  a  bill  for  the  annexation  of 
Texas.      (Id.  673.) 

Remarks  on  a  provision  in  the  General  Appropriation  Bill  for  the  pay- 
ment of  Jeremiah  Smith.     (Id.  673.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike  out  from  the  General  Appropriation 
Bill  the  provision  for  the  salary  of  the  charge  to  Sardinia.  Remarks  and 
votes  on  several  amendments.     (Id.  674.) 

Moves  an  amendment  to  appropriate  $6,000  for  the  outfit  of  David  Porter, 
late  minister  to  Turkey;  remarks  on  the  subject;  the  amendment  was 
adopted.     (Id.  675.) 

Moves  adjournment,  which  was  not  agreed  to.  Remarks  on  the  bill  for 
the  remission  of  the  duties  on  railroad  iron.     (Id.  675.) 

June  14. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  reform  of  the  naturalization  laws. 
(G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  678.) 

Votes  against  laying  on  the  table  the  resolution  of  inquiry  about  certain 
acts  of  Great  Britain.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844,  XIII.  678.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  take  up  a  bill  fixing  the  same  day  through- 
out the  United  States  for  the  choice  of  Presidential  electors.     (Id.  679.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  bill.  Votes  against  a  motion  to  lay  the  bill  on  the 
table.     (Id.  680.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  strike  out  from  the  Naval  Appropriation 
Bill  the  section  abolishing  spirit  rations.  (Id.  682.)  Participates  in  the 
debate  on  an  amendment.     (Id.  682.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  a  bill  making  appropriations  for  certain 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress.— s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1844  cxix 

objects  of  expenditure  therein  named,  in  the  year  ending  June  30,  1844. 
Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  683.) 

Remarks  on  and  votes  against  a  motion  to  take  up  the  question  of  recon- 
sidering the  vote  refusing  to  order  the  bill  for  the  remission  of  duties  on 
railroad  iron  to  be  engrossed.  (Id.  683.)  Votes  against  the  motion  to 
reconsider  the  vote.  (Id.  683.)  Remarks  on  the  bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  a 
motion  to  lay  the  whole  subject  on  the  table.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to 
postpone  the  subject.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  the  bill 
indefinitely.     (Id.  684.) 

June  15. — Remarks  on  the  order  of  business.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1843-1844, 

XIII.  688.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  report  of  the  Committee  on  Retrenchment.     (Id.  689.) 
June  17. — Presents  a  memorial  relative  to  the  reform  of  the  naturaliza- 
tion laws.     (G.  28  C.  1  s.  1 843-1844,  XIII.  695.) 

December  2. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.  (G.  28  C.  2  s. 
1844-1845,  XIV.  1.) 

December  4. — Presents  the  credentials  of  Senator  Ashley,  of  Arkansas. 
(G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  8.) 

December  9. — On  the  announcement  of  the  standing  committees,  appears 
as  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  and  of  the  Committee 
on  Manufactures.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  12;  S.  Doc.  2,  28  C.  2  s.) 

Presents  memorials  for  the  repair  of  the  piers  at  Port  Penn  and  for  the 
completion  of  the  light-house  on  the  Brandywine  shoals.     (Id.  12.) 

Moves  for  leave  to  withdraw  from  the  files  the  papers  in  the  case  of 
Joshua  Shaw,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  12.) 

December  11. — Presents  a  petition  of  the  executrix  of  James  Reeside  for 
the  payment  of  the  claim  against  the  Post  Office  Department.  Remarks  on 
the  claim.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  19.) 

December  12. — Presents  a  petition  for  the  repair  of  the  piers  at  Port 
Penn  and  for  the  completion  of  the  light-house  on  the  Brandywine  shoals. 
(G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  24.) 

December  17. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  repair  of  the  piers  at  Port 
Penn  and  for  the  completion  of  the  light-house  on  the  Brandywine  shoals ; 
also  additional  testimony  in  support  of  the  claim  of  Joshua  Shaw. 

*  Presents  a  memorial,  and  makes  remarks  thereon,  to  extend  the  period 
of  required  residence  before  naturalization  to  21  years.  (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844- 
1845,  XIV.  37-) 

December  19. — Presents  a  memorial  from  the  Philadelphia  and  Reading 
Railway  Company  for  the  remission  of  the  duties  on  imported  railroad  iron; 
also  a  memorial  of  the  widow  of  Enoch  Edwards  for  commutation  pay;  and 
a  memorial  for  the  repair  of  the  piers  at  Port  Penn  and  for  the  completion 
of  the  light-house  on  the  Brandywine   shoals.      (G.   28   C.   2   s.    1844-1845, 

XIV.  48.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  refer  the  bill  to  organize  the  government 
of  Oregon  to  the  Committee  on  Territories.     (Id.  48.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  question  of  reference.     (Id.  49,  Appendix,  46.) 
Votes  against  a  motion  to  refer  it  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations. 

(Id.  49,  Appendix,  50.) 

December  30. — Presents  memorials  on  the  subject  of  naturalization,  and 
for  the  admission  of  Texas,  and  the  continuation  of  the  tariff  of  1842;  also 
a  memorial  for  the  construction  of  a  canal  around  the  Falls  of  St.  Mary; 
also  a  memorial  for  a  constitutional  amendment  to  prevent  governmental 
interference  with  slavery.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  73.) 

December  31. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  and 
against  the  annexation  of  Texas.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  75.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress— s.=session— *=Printed  herein. 


cxx  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

SENATE  (Concluded),  1845. 

January  2,  1845. — Presents  memorials  for  the  abolition  of  slavery.  (G. 
28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  78.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  settlement  of  the  Reeside  claim.     (Id.  79.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  granting  lands  to  Indiana  to 
complete  the  Wabash  and  Erie  Canal.     (Id.  80.) 

January  6. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  proper  organization  of  Oregon 
Territory;  also  a  memorial  for  the  improvement  of  the  Mississippi  and 
tributary  rivers.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  93.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  increasing  the  pay  of  certain  officers  of  revenue- 
cutters.      (Id.  93.) 

January  7. — Remarks  on  a  resolution  to  prohibit  the  issuing  of  grants 
of  certain  lands  in  Louisiana.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  99.) 

January  8. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  reduction  of  postage  and  the 
abrogation  of  the  franking  privilege.  Remarks  on  the  subject.  (G.  28  C. 
2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  104.) 

January  9. — Moves  reference  of  a  memorial  of  Henry  May,  administrator 
of  Wm.  H.  Slacum,  which  was  agreed  to.  (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV. 
ii5) 

Remarks  on  amendments  to  the  bill  for  the  establishment  of  the  Smith- 
sonian Institution.     (Id.  117.) 

January  13. — Moves  reference  of  the  petition  of  Eliza  M.  Cloud,  which 
was  agreed  to.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  128.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  recommit  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Miles  King 
and  his  assigns.     (Id.  129.) 

January  14. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill 
renewing  widows'  pensions.      (G.  28  C  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  134.) 

January  15. — Presents  a  memorial  for  postage  reduction;  also  a  memorial 
to  extend  to  21  years  the  period  of  required  residence  before  naturalization. 
(G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  138.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill  increasing  the  pay 
of  officers  of  revenue-cutters  while  temporarily  employed  in  the  naval 
service.      (Id.   139.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  for  the  relief 
of  Asa  Andrews.     (Id.  139.) 

January  20. — Presents  documents  in  support  of  the  claim  of  William 
Fuller  and  Orlando  Saltmarsh  on  the  Post  Office  Department;  also  a  peti- 
tion for  an  amendment  of  the  naturalization  laws;  and  a  petition  as  to  the 
fitness  of  Hollidaysburg,  Pennsylvania,  as  a  site  for  a  national  armory. 
(G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  155.) 

Votes  against  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  to  refund  a  balance 
due  to  Massachusetts.     (Id.  156.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  authorizing  the  making  of  permanent  contracts  for 
the  transportation  of  mails  upon  railroads.     (Id.  157.) 

*  January  21. — Remarks  on  the  bill  for  establishment  of  the  Smithsonian 
Institution.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  162,  163-164.) 

January  22. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  continua- 
tion of  the  Cumberland  Road  in  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois.  (G.  28  C.  2  s. 
1844-1845,  XIV.  172.) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  refund  a  balance  due  to  Massa- 
chusetts.    (Id.  172.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  Joshua  Shaw.  Votes  against  a  motion 
to  recommit  the  bill.    Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  172.) 

G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1845  cxxi 

January  27. — Presents  a  memorial  for  fixing  a  uniform  postage  on  letters ; 
also  a  memorial  against  the  annexation  of  Texas.  (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845, 
XIV.  194.) 

January  29. — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
(G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  211.) 

*  Remarks  on  a  bill  to  reduce  the  postage  and  to  limit  the  franking 
privilege.     (Id.  214.) 

Votes  against  several  amendments  fixing  the  rates  of  postage.  (Id. 
214,  215.) 

February  3. — Presents  a  memorial  as  to  the  price  and  sale  of  public 
lands.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  233.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  on  the  bill  to  reduce  postage,  continuing  the 
franking  privilege  of  certain  officials.  Votes  and  speaks  on  several  amend- 
ments.    (Id.  234.) 

February  4. — Report  by  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  on  reso- 
lutions against  the  annexation  of  Texas. 

*  Remarks  on  the  subject.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  240.) 
February  5. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  refer  a  bill  to  provide  for  the 

annexation  of  Texas.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  248.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  to  reduce  postage.     (Id.  248.) 

February  6. — Remarks  on  his  amendment  to  an  amendment  to  the  bill 
to  reduce  postage  and  limit  the  franking  privilege.  Amendment  negatived. 
Votes  against  the  original  amendment.  Votes  in  favor  of  striking  out  the 
9th  section.  Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  concerning  newspapers.  (G. 
28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  252,  253.) 

February  7. — Presents  memorials  against  the  annexation  of  Texas ;  also 
memorials  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  and  for  the  colonizing  of  Pennsylva- 
nia negroes  in  Oregon  Territory.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  256.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  bill  to  reduce  postage.  (Id.  257.) 
Participates  in  a  debate  on  an  amendment  to  the  bill.     (Id.  257.) 

February  8. — Presents  a  memorial  against  the  annexation  of  Texas. 
(G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  260.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  to  reduce  postage.     (Id.  264.) 

February  10. — Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  the  bill 
to  provide  for  ascertaining  the  claims  of  American  citizens  for  French  spolia- 
tions prior  to  July  31,  1801.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  267.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  for  a  third  reading  a  bill  for  a  free  bridge 
across  the  Eastern  Branch  of  the  Potomac.     (Id.  267.) 

February  11. — Remarks  on  the  question  of  postponing  the  consideration 
of  the  resolution  against  the  annexation  of  Texas.  (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845, 
XIV.  271.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  for  the  purchase  and  distribution  of  the  decisions  of 
the  United  States  Supreme  Court.  (Id.  271.)  Votes  against  engrossing 
the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  273.) 

Remarks  on  a  bill  authorizing  the  appointment  of  assistant  surgeons 
and  assistant  pursers  in  the  Navy.  Votes  against  engrossing  the  bill  for  a 
third  reading.     (Id.  272.) 

February  13. — Presents  a  memorial  for  a  change  of  post  routes ;  also  a 
memorial  of  William  Carman  for  a  pension.  (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV. 
278.)  Presents  a  memorial  of  Enos  Stephens  concerning  his  invention  of  a 
machine  for  recording  legislative  votes.     (Id.  278.) 

Votes  against  the  passage  of  a  bill  for  the  purchase  and  distribution  of 
the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court.     (Id.  278.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


cxxii  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN 

Remarks  with  reference  to  the  resolution  against  the  annexation  of 
Texas.    Moves  adjournment,  which  was  agreed  to.     (Id.  281,  282.) 

February  14. — Speech  on  a  proposition  to  postpone  indefinitely  the  joint 
resolution  for  annexing  Texas.  (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  287;  Niles' 
Register,  March  1,  1845,  LXVII.  405-409.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  refer  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  a  bill  for 
the  admission  of  the  States  of  Iowa  and  Florida.     (Id.  287.) 

February  15. — Presents  a  memorial  for  the  purchase  and  distribution  of 
the  reports  of  the  Supreme  Court.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  291.) 

Votes  against  a  motion  to  postpone  a  resolution  to  fix  an  earlier  hour  of 
meeting.     (Id.  292.) 

February  19. — Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  resolution  fixing 
the  daily  hour  of  meeting  of  the  Senate.  Votes  in  favor  of  the  resolution. 
(G.  28  C  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  308.) 

February  20. — Votes  against  a  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  the 
resolution  providing  for  the  daily  hour  of  meeting.  (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844- 
1845,  XIV.  314-) 

Votes  in  favor  of  a  resolution  providing  that  the  special  order,  the 
resolution  admitting  Texas,  shall  be  proceeded  with  until  otherwise  ordered. 

(Id.  315.) 

February  22. — Presents  a  memorial  of  John  Hall  for  a  pension.  (G. 
28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  328.) 

February  24. — Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  a  bill  making  appropria- 
tions for  the  Military  Academy  at  West  Point.  (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845, 
XIV.  332.) 

February  26. — Remarks  on  the  bill  to  allow  certain  railroad  iron  to  be 
imported  free  of  duty  by  Michigan  and  by  certain  railroad  companies.  (G. 
28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  350.) 

Votes  against  two  separate  motions  to  adjourn.  Remarks  on  a  further 
motion  to  adjourn.     (Id.  352.) 

*  February  27. — Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  General  Appropria- 
tion Bill,  to  reduce  the  salaries  of  the  ministers  to  Austria  and  Brazil.  (G. 
28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  357.) 

*  Remarks  on  the  joint  resolution  from  the  House  for  annexing  Texas. 
(Id.  359.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  for  squatter  sovereignty  south  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  line.  Votes  against  an  amendment  stipulating  that 
the  public  debt  of  Texas  shall  in  no  event  become  a  charge  upon  the  United 
States  Government.  Votes  against  a  substitute.  Votes  in  favor  of  an 
amendment  providing  for  the  admission  of  Texas  as  a  State.  (Id.  361,  362.) 
Votes  against  a  further  amendment.  (Id.  361.)  Remarks  on  the  bill.  (Id. 
361-362.)  Votes  against  a  motion  to  strike  out  the  House  resolution.  Votes 
against  several  motions.  Votes  in  favor  of  engrossing  the  bill  for  a  third 
reading.     (Id.  362.) 

February  28. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  bill  to  enable  the  Chickasaw  Indians 
to  try  their  claims  in  United  States  courts.  (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV. 
365.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  Michigan  and  certain  railroad 
companies.    Votes  against  the  bill.     (Id.  365.) 

Remarks  on  an  amendment  to  the  General  Appropriation  Bill,  pro- 
viding for  compensation  to  J.  Pemberton  Hutchinson  for  diplomatic  ser- 
vices. (Id.  367.)  Remarks  on  an  amendment  as  to  computing  the  mileage 
of  members  of  Congress.      (Id.  367.) 


G.=Congressional  Globe. — C.=Congress.— s.=session. — *=Printed  herein. 


CAREER  IN  CONGRESS:    SENATE,  1845         cxxiii 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  the  Mexican  Indemnities  Bill.  (Id. 
368.)      Votes  against  the  amendment  on  reconsideration.      (Id.  369.) 

March  1. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  House  amendment  to  the  bill  to  reduce 
postage.     (G.  28  C.  2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  376.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  laying  on  the  table  a  resolution  providing  for  the 
retention  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  moneys  due  to  a  State  which 
may  be  in  default  for  the  payment  of  interest  or  principal  on  its  stocks 
or  bonds  held  by  the  United  States. 

*  Remarks  on  the  resolution.  Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  lay  the 
resolution  on  the  table.  Votes  against  its  engrossment  for  a  third  reading. 
(Id.  V7.) 

Votes  against  an  amendment  to  ttie  bill  for  the  admission  of  Florida  and 
Iowa  as  States.    Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill.     (Id.  383.) 

March  3. — Votes  in  favor  of  a  motion  to  postpone  previous  orders  and 
take  up  the  bill  to  organize  a  territorial  government  in  Oregon.  (G.  28  C. 
2  s.  1844-1845,  XIV.  388.) 

Participates  in  a  debate  on  the  Indian  Appropriation  Bill.  (Id.  389.) 
Votes  against  an  amendment.    Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment.     (Id.  389.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  laying  on  the  table  a  motion  to  print  a  report  on 
naturalization  frauds.     Votes  against  a  motion  to  print.     (Id.  389,  390.) 

Remarks  on  the  Navy  Appropriation  Bill.  Votes  against  an  amendment 
making  an  appropriation  for  the  heirs  of  Robert  Fulton.      (Id.  390.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  to  the  Army  Appropriation  Bill,  appro- 
priating $225,000  for  the  continuation  of  the  Cumberland  Road.  Remarks 
on  amendments  to  the  bill.  Votes  in  favor  of  an  amendment  making  an 
appropriation  for  the  improvement  of  the  Ohio  River.      (Id.  391.) 

Remarks  on  a  resolution  for  printing  a  report  of  Lieutenant  Fremont's 
expedition  over  the  Rocky  Mountains.      (Id.  391.) 

Votes  in  favor  of  the  passage,  over  the  President's  veto,  of  a  bill  in 
relation  to  revenue  cutters.     (Id.  391.) 

Remarks  on  the  bill  for  the  improvement  of  harbors  and  rivers.  (Id. 
391.)  Votes  against  certain  amendments.  (Id.  391.)  Votes  against  a 
motion  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table.  (Id.  392.)  Votes  in  favor  of  engross- 
ing the  bill  for  a  third  reading.     (Id.  393.) 

March  4. — Appears  as  a  Senator  from  Pennsylvania.  (G.  28  C.  2  s. 
1844-1845,  XIV.  397-) 


G.=Congressional  Globe.— C.=Congress.—s.=session.—*=Printed  herein. 


The  Works 


OF 


James  Buchanan 


1813. 
TO  JARED   INGERSOLL.1 

Lancaster  6th  February  1813. 
Dear  Sir 

Enclosed  you  will  discover  a  letter  of  recommendation  in 
my  favor,  Jas.  Hopkins,  Esq.,  of  Lancaster.  They  contain  a 
solicitation,  that  you  would  do  me  the  honor  of  appointing  me 
your  Deputy  in  the  county  of  Lebanon  which  has  recently  been 
struck  off  the  counties  of  Dauphin  &  Lancaster. 

I  should  have  procured  letters  from  a  greater  number  of 
persons  had  I  not  known  it  would  only  have  been  troubling 
you,  without  advancing  my  own  interest.  You  are  perfectly 
acquainted  with  how  much  facility  numerous  recommendations 
for  almost  any  appointment  can  be  obtained;  I  have  therefore 
in  addressing  you  been  bold  enough  to  come  forward  under  the 
patronage  of  but  two  names.  As  they  are  perfectly  acquainted 
with  the  qualifications  necessary  for  the  discharge  of  the  duties 
of  Deputy  Attorney  General,  and  as  they  have  too  much  honor 
and  integrity  to  deceive  you  by  recommending  an  unworthy  per- 
son :  I  feel  confident  that  their  solicitation  will  have  more  influence 
with  you,  than  if  my  appointment  had  been  asked  by  a  much 
greater  number  of  ordinary  characters. 

If  you  think  proper  to  honor  me  by  giving  me  the  appoint- 
ment, I  shall  feel  proud  to  have  obtained  it  from  a  gentleman 


1From  the  Buchanan  Papers,  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.  Mr. 
Ingersoll,  when  this  letter  was  written,  was  Attorney  General  of  Pennsylvania. 
The  text  here  given  is  taken  from  a  draft,  or  a  rough  copy,  in  which,  after 
the  word  "  favor "  in  the  second  line,  there  are  crossed  out  the  following 
words— "the  one  from  Mr.  Hopkins,  the  other  from  Judge  Franklin." 

1 


2  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1815 

of  your  distinction,  &  shall  use  every  exertion  to  do  my  duty 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  merit  your  approbation. 

Without  any  desire  to  precipitate  your  decision,  I  should 
consider  it  a  particular  favor  if  you  would  be  so  good  as  to  inform 
me  the  result  of  it,  as  soon  as  is  convenient,  after  it  is  made. 
I  hope  you  will  not  think  this  request  presumptuous,  when  you 
are  informed  that  I  am  a  young  man  just  about  selecting  a  place 
of  future  settlement,  &  that  your  determination  will  have  a 
considerable  influence  upon  my  choice. 

I  am  with  great  esteem  your[s]  sincerely 

James  Buchanan. 
Jared  Ingersoll  Esquire. 


1815. 
FOURTH   OF  JULY  ORATION.1 

AN    ORATION, 

Delivered  before  the  Washington  Association  of  Lancaster,  on  the 
fourth  of  July,  1815,  by  James  Buchanan,  Esq.,  and  published  at  the  request 
of  the  Standing  Committee. 

( Concluded. ) 

They  began  with  the  destruction  of  the  navy.  It  had  been 
supposed  by  the  federal  administrations,  that  a  navy  was  our 
best  defence.  From  the  locality  of  our  country,  and  from  the 
nature  of  such  a  force,  they  knew  that  it  would  be  peculiarly  cal- 
culated to  protect  our  shores  from  foreign  invasion,  and  to  make 
us  respected  by  the  nations  of  the  world ;  without,  like  a  standing 
army,  endangering  our  liberties.  It  was  also  foreseen  by  them, 
that  without  a  navy,  our  commerce  would  be  exposed,  as  a  rich 
temptation,  to  the  avarice  of  all  nations ;  and  in  consequence  of 
our  own  weakness,  we  would  be  subjected  to  constant  insults  and 

xThe  editor  has  been  unable  to  find  a  complete  copy  of  this  oration. 
It  was  published  in  the  Lancaster  Journal  of  July  21  and  July  28,  1815.  A 
search  in  Lancaster  and  elsewhere  has  failed  to  discover  a  copy  of  the  issue 
of  July  21,  containing  the  opening  part  of  the  speech.  A  copy  of  the  issue 
of  July  28,  containing  the  conclusion,  which  is  here  reproduced,  is  preserved 
in  the  rooms  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania,  at  Philadelphia. 
The  effect  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  Federalist  antecedents  is  clearly  displayed  in 
these  early  utterances.  For  his  own  comments  upon  them,  see  his  sketch 
of  the  early  part  of  his  life,  which  is  given  in  the  last  volume  of  this 
publication. 


1815]  FOURTH  OF  JULY  ORATION  3 

injuries  upon  the  ocean,  without  the  power  of  resistance.  It 
had,  therefore,  been  their  policy,  gradually  to  erect  a  navy,  and 
they  had  built  a  great  number  of  vessels  at  the  time  when  the 
first  democratic  administration  came  into  power. 

At  that  moment  the  scene  changed.  They  had  promised  the 
people  an  exemption  from  taxes,  and  unless  they  could  perform, 
their  popularity  was  in  danger.  They  did  not  hesitate  what 
course  to  pursue.  They  immediately  sold  our  national  ships — 
they  disarmed  the  country — left  commerce  unprotected  and  invited 
insult  and  injustice  from  abroad,  that  they  might  not  be  under 
the  necessity  of  imposing  a  trifling  tax,  and  thereby  injuring  their 
popularity  at  home. 

Thanks  be  to  Providence  the  delusion  upon  this  subject  has 
vanished,  and  their  conduct  now  appears  in  its  proper  light  before 
the  public.  The  little  remnant  of  that  navy,  which  had  been 
fondly  cherished  by  Washington  and  his  adherents,  but  which 
was  despised  by  the  patriots  of  the  present  day,  has  risen  trium- 
phant above  its  enemies  at  home,  and  has  made  the  proud  mistress 
of  the  ocean  tremble.  The  people  are  now  convinced  that  a  navy 
is  their  best  defence. 

The  democratic  administration  next  declared  war  against 
commerce.  They  were  not  satisfied  with  depriving  it  of  the 
protection  of  a  navy,  but  they  acted  as  though  they  had  deter- 
mined upon  its  annihilation.  At  a  time,  when  the  nations  of 
Europe  were  convulsed  by  dreadful  wars,  the  United  States  being 
neutral,  and  when,  in  consequence  thereof,  all  our  native  pro- 
ductions were  in  the  greatest  demand,  and  the  carrying  trade 
presented  to  our  merchants  a  rich  harvest  in  every  quarter  of  the 
globe,  they  shut  up  our  ports  by  embargoes  and  non-importation 
laws.  By  these  means,  the  streams  of  wealth,  which  were  flowing 
into  our  national  treasury  and  into  our  country,  from  the  thousand 
fountains  of  commerce,  were  suddenly  dried  up.  These  acts  of 
parricide  gave  an  instantaneous  and  a  dreadful  blow  to  our 
prosperity.  The  voice  of  business  was  no  longer  heard  in  our 
cities.  The  stillness  of  death  pervaded  every  street.  Dejection 
and  despair  sat  upon  each  .man's  countenance.  The  newspapers 
of  the  day,  instead  of  being  filled  with  arrivals  from  abroad,  and 
sales  of  merchandize,  teemed  with  bankruptcies.  And  our  ships 
were  laid  up  to  rot,  as  melancholy  monuments  of  the  weak  and 
wicked  policy  of  our  government. 

Who  that  has  witnessed  these  things,  cannot  observe  the  hand 
of  the  Corsican  despot,  like  that  dreadful  hand  upon  the  wall  of 


4  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1815 

the  Babylonish  monarch,  writing  our  destruction.  Who  can 
avoid  believing  that  Bonaparte  was  the  source  of  this  policy,  and 
that  it  was  intended  to  operate  in  unison  with  his  continental 
system.  It  might  perhaps  be  unwarrantable  to  assert,  that  our 
administration  were  actually  corrupted  by  France;  but  that  their 
politics  were  biassed  by  a  warm  and  improper  partiality  for  that 
country,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

Time  will  not  allow  me  to  enumerate  all  the  wild  and  wicked 
projects  of  the  democratic  administrations.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that 
after  they  had  deprived  us  of  the  means  of  defence,  by  destroying 
our  navy  and  disbanding  our  army;  after  they  had  taken  away 
from  us  the  power  of  re-creating  them,  by  ruining  commerce,  the 
great  source  of  our  national  and  individual  wealth;  after  they 
had,  by  refusing  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  a  continuation 
of  their  charter,  embarrassed  the  financial  concerns  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  withdrawn  the  only  universal  paper  medium  of  the 
country  from  circulation;  after  the  people  had  become  unaccus- 
tomed to,  and  of  course,  unwilling  to  bear,  taxation ;  and  without 
money  in  the  Treasury,  they  rashly  plunged  us  into  a  war  with  a 
nation  more  able  to  do  us  injury  than  any  other  in  the  world. 
What  was  the  dreadful  necessity  for  this  desperate  measure? 
Was  our  country  invaded?  No.  Were  our  liberties  in  danger? 
No.  Was  it  to  protect  our  little  remaining  commerce  from  the 
injuries  it  sustained  by  the  orders  in  council?  No.  Commerce 
was  not  such  a  favorite,  and  the  merchants  wished  for  no  war  on 
that  account.  Besides,  if  the  existence  of  the  orders  in  council 
had  been  its  true  cause,  after  their  repeal,  our  country  would  have 
accepted  the  olive  branch  which  was  offered  by  England.  What 
then  was  the  cause?  The  one  for  which  we  professed  to  draw 
the  sword  and  risk  our  all,  was  to  determine  an  abstract  question 
of  the  law  of  nations,  concerning  which,  an  opinion  different  from 
that  of  our  administration,  was  held  by  all  Europe.  To  decide 
whether  a  man  can  expatriate  himself  or  not.  In  the  decision  of 
this  question  our  administration  pretended  to  feel  a  deep  interest. 
The  greater  part  of  those  foreigners,  who  would  be  affected  by  it, 
had  long  been  their  warmest  friends.  They  had  been  one  of  the 
great  means  of  elevating  the  present  ruling  party,  and  it  would 
have  been  ungrateful  for  that  party  to  have  abandoned  them. 

Superficial  observers  may  suppose  this  to  have  been  the  real 
source  of  the  war;  but  whoever  will  carefully  and  impartially 
examine  the  history  of  our  country,  will  find  its  true  origin  to 
have  been  far  different.     It  took  its  rise  from  the  over-weaning 


1815]  FOURTH  OF  JULY  ORATION  5 

partiality  which  the  democratic  party  have  uniformly  shown  for 
France,  and  the  consequent  hatred  which  they  felt  against  her 
great  adversary,  England.  To  keep  this  foreign  feeling  alive, 
has  been  the  labour  of  their  leaders  for  more  than  twenty  years ; 
and  well  have  they  been  repaid  for  their  trouble,  for  it  has  been 
one  of  the  principal  causes  of  introducing  and  continuing  them 
in  power.  Immediately  before  the  war,  this  foreign  influence 
had  completely  embodied  itself  with  every  political  feeling  of  a 
majority  of  the  people,  particularly  in  the  west.  Its  voice  was 
heard  so  loud  at  the  seat  of  government,  that  the  President  was 
obliged  either  to  yield  to  its  dictates,  or  to  retire  from  office. 
The  choice  in  this  alternative  was  easily  made  by  a  man,  who 
preferred  his  private  interest  to  the  public  good.  We  were,  there- 
fore, hurried  into  the  war  utterly  unprepared. 

What  has  been  its  result?  Exactly  what  every  reasonable 
man  expected  at  its  commencement.  We  declared  our  intention 
of  conquering  Canada;  whether  for  the  purpose  of  annexing  it 
to  the  United  States,  or  of  compelling  our  enemy  to  yield  the  doc- 
trine of  impressment,  is  immaterial  to  the  present  question.  In- 
stead of  conquering  it,  we  have  ourselves  been  invaded  in  every 
quarter,  and  the  best  blood  of  the  country  has  streamed  in  defence 
of  our  own  soil.  The  very  capitol  of  the  United  States,  the  lofty 
temple  of  liberty,  which  was  reared  and  consecrated  by  Washing- 
ton, has  been  abandoned  to  its  fate  by  his  degenerate  successor, 
who  ought  to  have  shed  his  last  drop  of  blood  in  its  defence. 

After  the  administration  had  entered  upon  the  war,  instead 
of  coming  forward,  with  manly  confidence,  and  taxing  the  people 
for  its  support,  they  basely  shrunk  from  their  duty,  in  order  to 
maintain  their  popularity,  and  adopted  the  ruinous  system  of 
carrying  on  the  contest  by  borrowing  money.  What  were  the 
effects  of  this  policy  ?  Does  not  every  man  in  the  country  know, 
was  it  even  disguised  by  the  administration,  that  the  United 
States  would,  in  a  short  time,  have  become  bankrupt,  had  not  a 
peace  been  concluded?  Thanks  then  to  Heaven,  that  we  have 
obtained  a  peace,  bad  and  disgraceful  as  it  is;  otherwise,  the 
beautiful  structure  of  the  federal  government,  supported  by  the 
same  feeble  hands,  might  have  sunk,  like  the  capitol,  into  ruins. 

This  system  of  anticipating  our  revenue  has  left  an  immense 
load  of  debt  upon  the  country,  the  payment  of  which  will  be  a 
grievous  burden,  not  only  upon  the  present  generation,  but  upon 
posterity.  This  burden  has  fallen  more  heavily  upon  our  county, 
than  upon  any  other  part  of  the  union ;  on  account  of  our  numer- 


6  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1815 

ous  and  extensive  distilleries.  The  late  additional  duty  imposed 
upon  whiskey  has  almost  destroyed  its  manufacture.  In  its  con- 
sequences, it  has  not  only  affected  the  distillers,  but  it  has  given 
a  severe  blow  to  the  prosperity  of  this  county  generally.  Whilst 
the  distilleries  were  in  active  operation,  the  cattle  and  the  grain 
of  the  farmer  always  found  a  good  and  a  ready  market  at  home. 
The  balance  of  trade  was  greatly  in  our  favor,  and  wealth  was 
rapidly  diffusing  itself  throughout  our  county.  But  Congress, 
by  imposing  a  tax  upon  the  article  more  grievous  than  it  was  able 
to  bear,  have  not  only  blighted  our  prosperity,  but  have  destroyed 
the  very  revenue  which  they  intended  to  raise.  This  instance, 
among  many  others  of  a  similar  nature,  shows  how  totally  desti- 
tute are  our  present  rulers  of  wisdom  and  foresight,  even  upon 
subjects  immediately  regarding  the  pecuniary  interest  of  the 
government. 

These  are  not  the  only  evils  consequent  upon  that  timid  and 
time-serving  policy.  It  has  embarrassed  the  government  so  much, 
that  it  must  be  a  long  time  indeed,  before  we  can  dare  again  to  go 
to  war  with  any  powerful  nation,  even  for  the  maintenance  of  our 
dearest  rights.  All  these  evils  would,  in  a  great  measure,  have 
been  prevented  by  sufficient  independence  in  the  administration,  to 
have  imposed  moderate  taxes  at  the  commencement  of  the  contest. 
The  credit  of  the  nation  would  then  have  continued  good,  and  we 
might  have  avoided  the  painful  spectacle  of  seeing  the  public  stock 
sold  in  the  market,  at  an  enormous  discount,  and  greedy  specula- 
tors enriching  themselves  by  its  purchase,  at  the  expense  of  the 
toil  and  sweat  of  the  honest  yeomanry  of  our  country. 

Instead  of  exempting  seamen  sailing  under  our  flag  from 
impressment  by  the  war,  we  have  altogether  relinquished  that 
principle:  because  it  is  a  well  established  truth  in  the  law  of 
nations,  that  if  war  be  waged  by  one  country  against  another  for 
a  specified  claim,  and  the  treaty  which  terminates  the  contest,  is 
silent  upon  that  subject,  it  is  forever  abandoned.  Thus  the  gov- 
ernment have  at  last  yielded  the  very  point  for  the  maintenance 
of  which  they  professed  to  go  to  war,  after  having  expended 
nearly  $200,000,000. 

We  have  not  only  not  obtained  by  the  war  any  thing  which 
we  were  taught  to  expect,  but  we  have  lost  many  valuable  privi- 
leges. All  the  numerous  rights  and  advantages  guaranteed  to  us 
by  Jay's  treaty  have  been  relinquished.  Nay,  we  have  not  only 
been  compelled  to  conclude  a  treaty  which  does  not  contain  one 
solitary  stipulation  in  our  favor,  except  that  there  shall  be  peace ; 


1815]  FOURTH  OF  JULY  ORATION  7 

but  which  unsettles  the  boundaries  of  our  country,  and  leaves  to 
the  decision  of  commissioners,  whether  we  shall  longer  retain 
a  part  of  our  own  territory,  which  we  have  held  in  quiet  posses- 
sion for  more  than  twenty  years. 

But  notwithstanding  our  immense  national  debt,  which,  if 
the  war  had  continued,  would  soon  have  resulted  in  national  bank- 
ruptcy; notwithstanding  all  our  property,  even  the  very  neces- 
saries of  life  have  been  taxed  heavily ;  notwithstanding  we  have 
not  obtained  a  single  object  which  we  had  in  view  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  contest,  but  have  lost  many  valuable  privileges ; 
notwithstanding  our  country  has  been  invaded  in  every  quarter, 
and  the  capitol  of  the  United  States  has  been  laid  in  ashes  by  a 
marauding  party  of  the  enemy;  this  has  been  called  a  glorious 
war.  Glorious  it  has  been,  in  the  highest  degree,  to  the  American 
character;  but  disgraceful  in  the  extreme  to  the  administration. 
When  the  individual  States  discovered  that  they  were  abandoned 
by  the  general  government,  whose  duty  it  was  to  protect  them,  the 
fortitude  of  their  citizens  arose  with  their  misfortunes.  The 
moment  we  were  invaded,  the  genius  of  freedom  inspired  their 
souls.  They  rushed  upon  their  enemies  with  a  hallowed  fury, 
which  the  hireling  soldiers  of  Britain  could  never  feel.  They 
taught  our  foe,  that  the  soil  of  freedom  would  always  be  the  grave 
of  its  invaders. 

But  do  the  administration,  who  involved  us  in  the  late 
unnecessary  war,  derive  any  credit  from  their  exertions?  Cer- 
tainly not.  They  were  the  spontaneous  efforts  of  the  country, 
undirected  by  the  government.  The  militia  who  were  chiefly 
engaged  in  these  glorious  conflicts,  were  often  without  pay  and 
without  comfortable  clothing.  The  dreadful  situation  of  the 
country  compelled  them  to  abandon  their  families  and  the  sweets 
of  domestic  life,  without  any  previous  warning,  to  defend  places 
which  were  left  utterly  unprotected  by  their  proper  guardians. 
Places  which  ought  to  have  been  ready  for  a  siege,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  contest.  As  well  might  Ferdinand  the  7th 
of  Spain,  who  was  not  in  his  kingdom,  but  who  was  nominally 
king,  claim  the  glory  of  rescuing  his  country  from  the  armies  of 
France,  as  our  government  take  to  itself  the  credit  of  expelling 
our  invaders. 

When  we  turn  our  attention  to  the  regular  army  which  were 
peculiarly  under  the  direction  of  the  national  government,  what 
do  we  discover?  During  the  first  year  of  the  war,  that  year  in 
which  it  was  to  have  closed  with  glory,  that  year  within  which  our 


8  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1815 

triumphant  banners  were  to  have  floated  upon  the  walls  of  Quebec, 
and  all  Canada  was  to  have  been  ours,  the  year  in  which  that 
province  was  left  unprotected,  and  the  forces  of  our  enemy  were 
employed  in  Europe,  it  experienced  nothing  but  a  continuation 
of  degradation  and  defeat.  Is  there  an  American  on  the  floor 
of  this  house,  who  has  not  blushed  for  his  country  a  thousand 
times,  during  that  disgraceful  year.  Until  all  the  general  officers 
who  had  been  appointed  for  political  purposes,  and  intrusted  with 
the  command  at  the  commencement  of  the  contest,  were  dis- 
graced; and  until  others  had  fought  themselves  into  credit  and 
into  notice,  all  our  battles  ended  in  defeat. 

During  the  last  year  of  the  war,  the  regular  army,  under 
their  new  commanders  retrieved  their  lost  character  and  per- 
formed prodigies  of  valor ;  but  unfortunately,  on  account  of  the 
impotence  of  the  government,  they  fought  against  such  fearful 
odds,  that  they  were  hardly  able  even  to  defend  our  northern 
frontier.  Indeed,  so  dreadful  was  the  situation  of  our  country, 
for  some  time  previous  to  the  close  of  the  contest,  that  the 
occasional  splendid  exploits  of  our  heroes,  like  the  gleams  of 
lightning  in  a  dark  and  tempestuous  night,  only  added  new 
horrors  to  the  surrounding  gloom.  They  only  served  to  shew 
us  what  brilliant  exertions  our  country  might  have  made,  had 
we  been  governed  by  men  who  were  capable  of  properly  collect- 
ing and  directing  its  resources. 

But  peace  has  again  returned  to  bless  our  shores.  Again 
Commerce,  who  has  for  years  been  weeping  over  the  misfortunes 
of  our  country,  begins  to  smile.  Again  we  stand  neutral  towards 
all  the  European  powers.  What  then  should  be  the  political 
conduct  of  our  country  in  future  ?  Precisely  to  pursue  the  politi- 
cal maxims  adopted  by  Washington.  We  ought  to  cultivate 
peace  with  all  nations,  by  adopting  a  strict  neutrality  not  only 
of  conduct  but  of  sentiment.  We  ought  to  make  our  neutrality 
respected,  by  placing  ourselves  in  an  attitude  of  defence.  We 
ought  forever  to  abandon  the  wild  project  of  a  philosophic  vision- 
ary, of  letting  commerce  protect  itself.  For  its  protection  we 
ought  to  increase  our  navy.  We  ought  never  to  think  of  embar- 
goes and  non-intercourse  laws  without  abhorrence.  We  ought 
to  use  every  honest  exertion  to  turn  out  of  power  those  weak  and 
wicked  men,  who  have  abandoned  the  political  path  marked  out 
for  this  country  by  Washington,  and  whose  wild  and  visionary 
theories  have  been  at  length  tested  by  experience  and  found 
wanting.     Above  all,  we  ought  to  drive  from  our  shores  foreign 


1821]  TO  JUDGE  FRANKLIN  9 

influence,  and  cherish  exclusive  American  feelings.  Foreign 
influence  has  been,  in  every  age,  the  curse  of  Republics.  Her 
jaundiced  eye  sees  all  things  in  false  colours.  The  thick  atmos- 
phere of  prejudice,  by  which  she  is  forever  surrounded,  excludes 
from  her  sight  the  light  of  reason.  Whilst  she  worships  the 
nation  which  she  favours,  for  their  very  crimes,  she  curses  the 
enemy  of  that  nation  even  for  their  virtues.  In  every  age  she 
has  marched  before  the  enemies  of  her  country,  proclaiming  peace 
when  there  was  no  peace,  and  lulling  its  defenders  into  false 
security,  whilst  the  iron  hand  of  despotism  has  been  aiming  a 
death-blow  at  their  liberties.  Already  has  our  infant  republic 
felt  her  withering  influence.  Already  has  she  involved  us  in  a 
war  which  had  nearly  cost  us  our  existence.  Let  us  then  learn 
wisdom  from  experience,  and  forever  banish  this  fiend  from  our 
society.  We  are  separated  from  the  nations  of  Europe  by  an 
immense  ocean.  We  are  still  more  disconnected  from  them,  by 
a  different  form  of  government,  and  by  the  enjoyment  of  true 
liberty.  Why  then  should  we  injure  ourselves,  by  taking  part  in 
the  ambitious  contests  of  foreign  despots  and  kings? 

Should  this  Washingtonian  policy  be  pursued,  our  country 
will  again  rise  to  its  former  greatness  and  wealth.  Under  the 
blessing  of  Providence,  we  may  then  calculate  on  a  long  and  a 
happy  existence  as  a  nation.  We  may  reasonably  hope  that  our 
children's  children  to  remote  generations  may  be  assembled 
together  upon  this  auspicious  day,  blessing  the  memories  of  the 
men  whom  Heaven  entrusted  with  the  glorious  task,  of  making 
a  great  nation   free,  happy,  and  independent. 


1821. 
TO  JUDGE  WALTER  FRANKLIN.1 

Washington  city  21  Dec.  1821. 
Dear  Sir 

It  was  very  gratifying  to  me,  to  have  received  a  letter  from 
you.     I  can  with  all  my  heart,  reciprocate  towards  you  the  expres- 


1From  the  Buchanan  Papers,  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.  Judge 
Franklin,  when  impeached  during  the  sessions  of  the  Pennsylvania  legis- 
lature of  1816-17  and  1817-18,  was  defended  by  Buchanan,  who  refers  to  the 
trials  in  his  autobiographical  sketch  of  his  early  life,  given  in  the  last  volume 
of  this  publication.     See,  also,  Curtis's  Buchanan,  I.  16. 


10  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1821 

sions  of  friendship  which  it  contains,  although  the  intervention 
of  unfortunate  circumstances,  may  have  prevented  me  from  enjoy- 
ing as  much  of  the  pleasure  and  profit  of  your  society,  as  I  could 
have  desired;  yet  my  respect  and  friendship  for  you  have  been 
uniform  and  unvariable.  It  was  my  intention,  before  I  came  to 
Washington,  to  send  you  all  the  public  documents,  which  I 
thought  would  be  interesting  to  you,  and  I  shall  continue  to  do 
so  until  the  end  of  the  Session.  It  is  probable  you  may  find  them 
worth  preserving,  as  it  is  now  difficult  even  here  to  obtain  those 
which  were  printed,  but  a  few  years  ago. 

Upon  becoming  acquainted  with  the  Members,  and  hearing 
several  of  them  speak,  I  was  forcibly  struck  with  the  idea  that 
the  reputation  of  many  of  them,  stands  higher  than  it  deserves. 
Several  gentlemen  who  appear  to  great  advantage  in  the  debates 
published,  receive  no  attention  from  the  Members,  they  speak  for 
their  constituents  and  not  to  enlighten  their  audience ;  indeed  this 
matter  seems  to  be  so  perfectly  understood,  that  they  proceed 
with  the  most  perfect  deliberation  and  composure,  although  they 
must  see  and  know  that  they  are  not  able  to  command  any  atten- 
tion. With  respect  to  many  of  them,  if  the  members  were  even 
disposed  to  listen,  they  could  not  hear.  It  requires  great  compass 
of  voice  to  fill  the  hall.  It  is  a  very  magnificent  and  very  elegant 
chamber,  but  unless  a  man  has  stentorian  lungs,  he  cannot  be 
heard  distinctly.  The  voice  of  Mr.  Coulden,  for  instance,  whom 
you  have  no  doubt  heard  speak,  is  so  weak,  that  his  usefulness, 
on  that  account,  will  be  in  a  great  degree  lost. 

Mr.  Randolph's  shrill,  sharp,  effeminate  voice  is  eminently 
calculated  for  the  chamber  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  He 
is  indeed  an  extraordinary  man,  in  his  way.  When  he  rises  to 
speak,  he  commands  the  most  profound  attention.  He  is  not  very 
argumentative,  but  there  is  more  severity  and  point,  both  in  his 
matter  and  in  his  manner  than  can  be  conceived  by  any  person, 
who  has  never  had  an  opportunity  of  hearing  him.  He  is  perfect 
master  of  language,  and  always  uses  the  very  best  word  to  convey 
his  idea.  It  is  said  by  those  who  are  intimately  acquainted  with 
him  that  he  is  perfectly  rational  this  winter;  and  from  my  own 
observation,  I  have  no  doubt  that  is  the  fact.  He  is  great  in 
demolishing,  but  not  in  building  up,  and  I  have  little  doubt,  that 
if  he  now  stood  at  the  head  of  a  powerful  opposition,  as  he  did 
in  the  days  of  John  Adams,  and  had  an  opportunity  of  attacking 
such  ruinous  measures,  as  were  then  adopted,  his  character  as  a 
politician  would  be  placed  nearly  on  the  same  level  which  it  then 


1822]        SPEECH  ON  INDIAN  APPROPRIATIONS  11 

occupied.     At  present  it  is  said  he  is  hostis  humani  generis,  and 
attacks  indiscriminately  friend  and  foe. 

I  have  twice  attempted  to  speak,  and  each  time  received  a 
tolerable  share  of  attention,  which  in  a  very  great  degree,  I 
attributed  to  the  curiosity  of  the  Members,  as  on  both  occasions 
I  felt  myself  much  embarrassed.  I  am  told,  however,  that  I 
can  be  distinctly  heard. 

The  first  business  of  general  importance  on  which  we  shall 
act  will  be  the  Bankrupt  bill.  Upon  this  subject  I  have  not  yet 
made  up  my  mind,  and  it  would  therefore  afford  me  much  satis- 
faction to  hear  your  opinion ;  your  memory  can  recall  the  effects 
of  the  last  bill  on  society ;  and  as  a  politician  I  am  not  disposed 
readily  to  abandon  the  lessons  of  experience  for  any  fanciful 
theories,  however  plausible.  Whilst  on  the  one  hand,  I  would 
desire  to  relieve  the  many  honest  and  unfortunate  Individuals, 
who  are  now  suffering  under  the  pressure  of  debts,  which  they 
will  never  be  able  to  discharge,  on  the  other,  I  fear  the  pas- 
sage of  a  Bankrupt  law  might  again  encourage  that  spirit  of 
unbounded  speculation,  which  has  occasioned  the  very  evils  it 
proposes  to  remedy.  My  mind  is,  however,  wholly  undetermined 
on  the  subject. 

I  have  at  present  nothing  more  to  add  than  that  I  remain, 
Your  sincere  friend 

James  Buchanan. 


1822. 
SPEECH,  JANUARY  9,  1822, 

in  the  house  of  representatives,  in  committee  of  the  whole, 
on  a  deficiency  in  the  indian  appropriations.1 

Mr.  Chairman  : 

On  Friday  last,  when  the  House  adjourned,  I  did  believe  that 
the  subject  now  before  the  Committee  was  involved  in  doubt  and 
in  mystery.  I  thought  that  a  dark  cloud  hung  over  the  transac- 
tion, which  ought  to  be  cleared  up  before  the  House  could  give 
its  sanction  to  this  appropriation.  After  a  careful  examination, 
the  mystery  has  vanished — the  cloud  has  been  dispelled — and,  to 
my  view,  the  subject  appears  clear  as  the  light  of  day.  If  it  had 
not,  my  vote  would  be  given  against  the  appropriation ;   because, 


1  Annals  of  Congress,  17  Cong.  1  Sess.  1821-1822,  I.  682-690. 


12  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

in  a  Republican  Government,  doubt  and  mystery,  in  any  measure 
proposed  by  the  Executive  Department,  should  always  be  sufficient 
to  prevent  it  from  receiving  the  support  of  the  House. 

In  the  remarks  which  I  propose  to  submit,  it  will  be  my 
endeavor  to  communicate  to  the  Committee  the  reasons  upon 
which  I  have  come  to  the  determination  to  give  this  appropriation 
my  unqualified  support.  If  I  should  be  wrong,  there  are  many 
gentlemen  in  the  House  whose  judgment  and  whose  experience 
will  enable  them  to  correct  my  errors. 

Nice  distinctions  have  been  drawn  between  a  just  confidence 
in  the  Executive  Departments,  and  an  unreasonable  jealousy  of 
their  conduct  on  the  one  side;  and,  on  the  other,  between  that, 
confidence,  and  a  belief  in  their  infallibility.  Extremes  in  such 
a  case  are  very  dangerous.  Whilst  unreasonable  jealousy  of  men 
in  power  keeps  the  public  mind  in  a  state  of  constant  agitation 
and  alarm,  a  blind  reliance  upon  their  infallibility  may  enable 
them  to  destroy  the  liberties  of  the  people  before  they  are  aware 
of  the  existence  of  the  danger.  At  the  same  time,  therefore,  that 
I  trust  I  am  one  of  the  last  men  in  the  House  who  would  consent 
to  establish  the  office  of  dictator  in  the  Commonwealth,  or  to 
believe  in  the  infallibility  of  mortals  in  politics  more  than  in 
religion ;  yet,  I  should  think  it  wrong  to  withhold  from  a  public 
officer  that  degree  of  confidence  which  assumes  that  he  has  acted 
correctly,  until  the  contrary  appears.  It  ought  to  be  a  maxim 
in  politics,  as  well  as  in  law,  that  an  officer  of  your  Government, 
high  in  the  confidence  of  the  people,  shall  be  presumed  to  have 
done  his  duty,  until  the  reverse  of  the  proposition  is  proved. 

These  observations  are  made,  not  because  I  believe  they  have 
any  bearing  upon  the  present  question,  but  simply  in  answer  to 
those  used  by  gentlemen  who  have  argued  upon  the  opposite  side. 
The  Secretary  of  War,  upon  the  present  occasion,  requires  not 
the  aid  of  presumptions  in  his  favor,  because,  to  my  mind  at  least, 
there  is  the  most  full,  satisfactory,  and  self-evident  proof. 

Before  I  come  to  the  principal  question,  Mr.  Chairman,  per- 
mit me  to  answer  one  of  the  arguments  which  has  been  eloquently 
and  ingeniously  urged  by  the  gentlemen  opposed  to  this 
appropriation. 

It  has  been  said,  with  truth,  that  the  Constitution  provides, 
"  That  no  money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  Treasury  but  in  conse- 
quence of  appropriations  made  by  law."  It  is  certain  that  this 
provision  is  the  best  security  for  the  liberties  of  the  people  in  the 
whole  of  the  instrument.     Once  transfer  this  branch  of  power, 


1822]        SPEECH  ON  INDIAN  APPROPRIATIONS  13 

vested  in  Congress,  by  the  Constitution,  to  the  Executive,  and 
your  freedom  is  but  an  empty  name.  That  Department  of  the 
Government  having  then  the  command  of  the  purse,  might  very 
soon  assume  the  power  of  the  sword. 

Has  the  Secretary  of  War  violated  this  salutary  provision? 
Has  he  drawn  money  out  of  the  Treasury  without  an  appropria- 
tion made  by  law  for  that  purpose?  Unquestionably  not.  So 
far  from  asking  you  to  sanction  such  an  unconstitutional  measure, 
he  is  now  requesting  you  to  make  an  appropriation  to  supply  a 
deficiency  in  the  means  which  you  had  provided  to  enable  him 
to  discharge  positive  duties,  enjoined  upon  him  by  your  own  laws. 

Whether  this  deficiency  shall  be  supplied  out  of  the  public 
purse,  or  the  Secretary  be  made  responsible  in  his  private  capacity 
to  those  with  whom  he  has  made  contracts  on  the  faith  of  the 
Government,  is  the  only  question  now  before  the  Committee. 

Here  let  me  ask  gentlemen,  why  they  are  so  much  alarmed 
at  the  fact  that  the  appropriation  has  proved  deficient  ?  Deficien- 
cies must  and  will  occur  so  long  as  the  men  who  wield  the  des- 
tinies of  this  Government  are  fallible.  Nothing  short  of  the 
spirit  of  prophecy  can  prevent  them  from  happening,  unless  Con- 
gress should  think  proper  to  make  such  overwhelming  appropria- 
tions as  would  be  sufficient  to  cover  all  contingencies,  not  only 
probable  but  possible.  They  existed  even  while  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  (Mr.  Randolph)  was  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
of  Ways  and  Means.  I  speak  the  honest  sentiments  of  my  heart 
when  I  declare  that,  in  my  opinion,  he  possessed  as  much  pene- 
tration as  any  gentleman  who  ever  occupied  that  distinguished 
station.  Calculate,  with  the  nicest  precision,  the  future  probable 
expenses  of  any  department  of  the  Government,  and  in  the  course 
of  the  year  for  which  the  estimate  is  made  suppose  there  should 
be  no  events  of  extraordinary  occurrence,  still  it  will  be  a  miracle 
if  ever  the  appropriation  shall  be  exactly  equal  to  all  the  necessary 
expenditures.  At  the  instant  of  time  when  the  sum  appropriated 
is  expended  in  executing  your  laws,  would  you  have  the  wheels 
of  Government  to  stop  ?  Would  you  declare  that  all  your  public 
agents  who  had  served  you  faithfully  should  receive  no  compen- 
sation, merely  because  either  you  or  your  Secretary  of  War,  in 
the  beginning  of  the  year,  could  not  foresee  the  expenses  which 
might  be  incurred  before  its  end? 

Take  for  example  the  Army.  Admit,  for  the  sake  of  argu- 
ment that  which  is  impossible,  even  in  times  of  the  most  profound 
tranquillity,  that  you  had  estimated  its  future  annual  expense  to 


14  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

a  fraction,  and  had  made  an  appropriation  accordingly.  Suppose 
that  during  the  recess  of  Congress  political  storms  should  envelope 
your  country,  that  treason  at  home,  or  war  from  abroad,  were 
about  to  disturb  your  peace,  and  that  the  point  of  meditated  attack 
was  within  the  knowledge  of  your  Executive.  Under  such  cir- 
cumstances, would  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  justified, 
either  to  his  conscience  or  to  his  constituents,  if  he  were  not  to 
march  the  Army  from  all  quarters  of  the  Union  to  the  district  of 
danger.  What  would  you  then  think  of  his  justification,  if  he 
informed  you,  that  he  neglected  to  provide  for  the  common  de- 
fence, because  the  Army  appropriation  was  too  small  to  enable 
him  to  embody  the  forces.  Such  conduct  would  be  treason 
against  the  Republic. 

Your  security,  in  all  cases  of  this  kind,  arises  from  that 
admirable  provision  of  the  Constitution  which  declares  that  no 
money  shall  be  drawn  from  the  Treasury  but  under  the  authority 
of  law.  When  any  officer  of  the  Government  applies  for  the  pas- 
sage of  a  bill  to  supply  a  deficiency,  you  always  inquire  into  the 
reason  why  it  has  occurred ;  and,  if  his  conduct,  upon  examina- 
tion, is  found  to  be  correct,  you  will,  as  you  have  always  hitherto 
done,  supply  the  deficiency. 

This  course  of  policy  is  not  only  necessary  in  itself,  but  it 
gives  you  a  much  greater  control  over  the  public  purse  than  if, 
in  the  beginning  of  the  year,  you  were  to  make  your  appropria- 
tions sufficiently  large  to  cover  all  contingencies.  Such  conduct 
would  be  a  powerful  temptation  to  the  officer  to  become  extrava- 
gant in  the  expenditure  of  public  money. 

Let  us,  then,  inquire  whether  it  was  necessary  that  the  sum 
of  $170,000  should  have  been  expended  in  the  Indian  department 
during  the  year  1821,  to  carry  into  effect  the  spirit  and  intention 
of  the  different  acts  of  Congress. 

It  has  been  urged,  that,  as  Congress  appropriated  but 
$100,000  to  defray  the  current  expenses  of  that  department  dur- 
ing the  last  year,  the  Secretary  was  bound  to  confine  himself 
within  that  amount.  The  necessary  consequence  would  be,  that 
the  laws  establishing  that  branch  of  our  policy  were,  in  this 
manner,  at  least  in  part,  repealed. 

This  is,  I  confess,  the  first  occasion  on  which  I  have  ever 
heard  that  a  system  of  laws  which  had  received  a  fixed  construc- 
tion by  the  practice  of  the  nation  for  more  than  twenty  years, 
could  be  repealed,  not  by  withdrawing  the  whole,  but  a  part  of 
the  appropriation  necessary  to  carry  them  into  effect.     If  this 


1822]       SPEECH  ON  INDIAN  APPROPRIATIONS  15 

were  the  case,  it  would  give  to  estimates,  uncertain  in  their  very 
nature,  the  effect  of  expunging  from  our  statute  book  the  most 
wholesome  regulations.  Nay,  more,  it  would  be  delegating  legis- 
lative power  to  the  Head  of  a  Department,  and  would  introduce 
the  very  evil  against  which  gentlemen  are  so  anxious  to  guard. 
By  this  construction,  if  there  be  laws  in  existence  enjoining  a 
variety  of  duties  on  any  officer  of  the  Government;  and  if,  to 
enable  him  to  discharge  all  those  duties,  an  annual  expenditure  of 
$170,000  is  necessary,  your  appropriation  of  but  $100,000  to  that 
purpose  would  make  him  the  legislator,  instead  of  yourselves. 
You  thus  necessarily  vest  in  him  the  power  of  deciding  what  parts 
of  the  system  shall  remain  in  vigor,  and  what  parts  shall  fall 
before  his  power.  In  order  to  ascertain  what  laws  are  repealed, 
you  would  be  obliged  to  resort,  not  to  your  statute  book,  but  to  the 
Head  of  a  Department.  Even  then,  they  would  be  forever  vary- 
ing, because,  whilst  he  confined  himself  within  his  appropriation, 
he  might  at  pleasure  range  through  the  whole  system  as  it  origi- 
nally stood,  and  select  from  it  such  parts  as  he  thought  proper  to 
carry  into  effect.  This  is  not  the  manner  in  which  Congress  ever 
will,  or  ever  can,  manifest  their  intention.  If  they  desire  to 
reduce  the  expenses  of  any  Department  of  the  Government,  they 
themselves  will  lop  off  every  branch  which  they  deem  superfluous, 
and  not  leave  it  to  the  discretion  of  any  Executive  officer,  no 
matter  how  exalted  his  station.  Whilst,  however,  certain  duties 
are  enjoined  on  any  Department  of  the  Government,  by  acts  of 
Congress,  or  by  treaties,  we  are  bound  to  supply  the  officer  with 
the  means  necessary  to  the  performance  of  those  duties.  If,  in 
such  a  case,  our  appropriation  has  been  insufficient,  we  ought  at 
once  to  supply  the  deficiency. 

What  then  is  the  present  condition  of  that  Department  of  the 
Government  called  the  Indian  department  ?  The  objects  of  its  ex- 
penditure, designated  by  acts  of  Congress,  and  by  treaties,  which 
are  equally  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  are  of  a  two-fold  char- 
acter. From  the  nature  of  the  first,  the  probable  expense  can 
be  ascertained  without  difficulty,  because  it  consists  of  the  salaries 
allowed  to  agents,  sub-agents,  interpreters,  and  blacksmiths,  and, 
we  are  informed,  by  the  letter  of  the  Secretary,  that  its  amount 
is  not  less  than  sixty  thousand  dollars  annually.  The  other 
objects  of  expense,  although  authorized  by  acts  of  Congress  and 
treaties,  are,  in  their  character,  so  uncertain  that  the  expenses 
incurred  upon  them  are  necessarily  contingent  in  amount.  They 
are  detailed  in  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  consist  of 


16  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

"  occasional  presents  to  Indians  visiting  the  Agencies,  rations 
issued  to  them  while  there,  also  to  distressed  Indians,  and  to  the 
Indians  when  assembled,  for  the  purpose  of  distributing  their 
annuities,  transportation  of  annuities,  farming  and  manufacturing 
utensils  for  the  use  of  the  Indians,"  &c.  The  two  acts  of  Con- 
gress, the  one  passed  the  13th  May,  1800,  and  the  other  the  30th 
March,  1802,  are  the  foundation  on  which  our  system  of  policy, 
towards  the  Indians,  has  been  raised  by  subsequent  legislative 
provisions  and  by  treaties.  The  expenses  of  this  department 
were : 

In  1808  $140,600 

1809  125,600 

1810  146,600 

181 1  146,600 

1812  164,500 

1813  164,500 

1814  464»500 

1815  200,000 

1816  200,000 

1817  200,000 

1818  250,000 

1819  213,000 

1820  200,000 

In  addition  to  these  sums,  which  appear  on  the  appropriation 
bills  of  the  several  years,  the  last  Congress  supplied  a  deficiency 
of  $130,205.44,  for  the  years  181 5  and  181 7. 

This  system,  so  eminently  calculated  to  preserve  tranquillity 
around  our  borders,  and  to  prevent  the  intrigues  of  another  nation 
from  obtaining  for  them  an  undue  ascendency  over  the  minds  of 
the  savages,  had  been  long  established,  and  was  as  much  incor- 
porated into  your  policy  as  that  of  sending  ambassadors  to  foreign 
courts.  Did  Congress  express  any  disapprobation  of  this  sys- 
tem? Did  they  destroy  any  part  of  the  bill  which  appropriated 
$100,000  for  the  current  expenses  of  the  year?  Did  they  intend 
that  the  Secretary  should  destroy  the  objects  of  ascertained  or  of 
contingent  expense?  Both  had  been  equally  provided  for  by 
your  laws  and  by  your  treaties.  Did  Congress  mean  either  that 
the  Indians  should  receive  no  rations  at  your  military  posts,  or 
that  no  presents  should  be  given  to  them,  or  that  they  should 
be  deprived  of  the  benefit  of  receiving  agricultural  instruments 
from  your  hands  ?  If  they  did,  they  have  expressed  no  such  deter, 
mination  by  any  law.  The  consequence  of  the  construction  con- 
tended for  is,  that  if  they  intended  anything  by  appropriating  but 


1822]        SPEECH  ON  INDIAN  APPROPRIATIONS  17 

$100,000,  it  was  to  enable  the  Secretary  to  legislate  in  your  behalf, 
and  to  repeal  so  much  of  existing  laws  and  existing  treaties  as 
would  reduce  the  expense  to  $100,000.  This  he  had  no  power  to 
do,  and  to  allow  him  to  exercise  it  would  establish  a  most  danger- 
ous precedent  against  the  liberties  of  this  people.  It  would  be 
to  allow  an  officer  to  stop  the  wheels  of  Government,  and  paralyze 
the  energies  of  the  law  the  moment  the  appropriation  which  had 
been  made  was  expended. 

Could  the  Secretary  have  ever  supposed  that  you  intended  to 
destroy  any  part  of  this  establishment?  Certainly  not,  because 
the  expenditures  are  most  just  as  well  as  most  politic.  You  have 
driven  that  noble  race  of  men  from  the  hunting  grounds  which 
God  and  nature  intended  for  their  support.  You  have  caused 
intestine  wars  to  rage  continually  among  them,  by  driving  remote 
tribes  near  together,  and  thus  making  it  necessary  to  their  exist- 
ence that  they  should  invade  the  hunting  grounds  of  each  other. 
During  the  very  last  year,  it  appears  from  the  letter  of  the  Secre- 
tary that  the  disbursements  have  been  increased  by  the  emigration 
of  the  Indians  from  the  States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois, 
beyond  the  Mississippi.  After  thus  crowding  them  together, 
you  make  them  waste  their  scanty  supply  of  game,  by  inducing 
them  to  destroy  it  without  necessity,  so  that  you  may  obtain  their 
fur  to  gratify  your  appetite  for  luxury.  In  this  situation,  to 
which  they  have  been  reduced  by  our  policy,  the  laws  have  pro- 
vided that,  when  the  cravings  of  hunger  shall  drive  these  children 
of  the  forest  to  your  military  posts,  either  on  the  frontier  or  in 
their  own  territory,  they  shall  receive  food ;  that,  in  order  to  pre- 
serve their  existence,  and  enable  them  to  live  upon  the  circum- 
scribed limits  within  which  they  have  been  driven,  they  should  be 
taught  agriculture,  and  receive  the  implements  of  husbandry; 
that,  when  their  chiefs  think  proper  to  visit  your  metropolis,  you 
will  enable  them  to  do  so  by  paying  their  expenses,  and  thus 
manifest  to  them  the  extent  of  both  your  power  and  your  friend- 
ship. In  short,  all  the  other  provisions  which  our  laws  and  our 
treaties  have  made  for  them,  and  which  I  shall  not  detail,  are 
founded,  not  only  in  the  strictest  justice,  but  in  the  wisest  policy. 

Did  Congress  intend,  by  the  mere  act  of  appropriating 
$100,000  for  the  current  expenses  of  the  last  year,  that  the  head 
of  a  Department  should  alter  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  that  he 
might  at  his  will  declare  what  part  of  the  Indian  system  should 
be  in  force,  and  what  part  should  be  considered  as  repealed? 
Was  it,  for  example,  their  determination  that  no  treaties  should 

2 


18  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

be  held  with  the  Indians,  however  necessary  they  might  have 
been,  because  the  Secretary  had  thought  proper  to  apply  the 
whole  of  your  appropriations  to  other  objects?  This  never  could 
have  been  their  intention.  Congress  alone  have  the  power  of 
changing  this  system  of  policy.  Whenever  they  think  proper  to 
do  so,  by  unequivocal  legislative  acts,  then,  and  not  till  then, 
does  it  become  the  duty  of  Executive  officers  to  obey.  They  dare 
not  sooner  neglect  to  carry  existing  laws  and  treaties  into  effect. 

Suppose  the  Secretary  had  thought  proper  materially  to  alter 
our  policy  towards  the  Indians,  and  the  first  information  you 
heard  of  the  change  was,  as  it  probably  would  have  been,  the 
howl  of  savage  warfare  around  your  borders,  and  the  shrieks 
of  helpless  women  and  children  under  the  scalping-knife !  Could 
you  then  have  justified  his  conduct?  Would  you  then  have  told 
him  that  he  had  the  power  of  altering  the  whole  system,  because  a 
sufficient  appropriation  had  not  been  made  to  keep  it  in  motion 
till  the  end  of  the  year?  And  this,  too,  when  the  very  sentence 
before  the  appropriation  of  $100,000  provided  that  $130,205.44 
should  be  drawn  from  the  Treasury,  to  cover  past  arrearages  in 
the  Indian  department?  The  legitimate  meaning  of  a  reduction 
in  the  appropriation  was  not  to  destroy  any  part  of  our  policy 
towards  the  Indians,  but  to  warn  the  Secretary  to  use  the  strictest 
economy  in  carrying  every  part  of  it  into  effect.  It  has  produced 
that  happy  result.  He  has  informed  you  that  the  expenses  of  the 
present  year  will  not  exceed  $150,000.  This  sum  is  upwards 
of  $85,000  less  than,  upon  an  average,  was  appropriated  to  the 
same  purpose,  in  each  year,  from  181 5  to  1820,  both  inclusive. 
It  was  but  a  few  thousand  dollars  more  than  was  expended  for 
the  use  of  the  same  department  for  each  of  the  two  last  years  of 
Mr.  Jefferson.  In  the  meantime  our  relations  with  the  Indians 
have  been  greatly  extended  with  our  extending  frontier,  and  we 
have  become  acquainted  with  tribes,  of  which  before  we  had  never 
even  heard  the  names.  This  great  curtailment  of  expense  places 
the  character  of  the  present  Secretary,  in  this  particular,  upon  an 
exalted  eminence ;  and  the  more  so,  as  it  is  well  known  that  not 
one  cent  more  of  money  was  expended  by  the  administration  of 
Mr.  Jefferson  than  was  necessary  to  accomplish  its  objects. 

But  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  /hat  the  Secretary 
ought  to  have  inferred  from  your  appropriation  bill,  that  you  in- 
tended he  should  change  the  Indian  system,  still,  we  should  vote 
the  $70,000  to  supply  the  deficit.  If  we  do  not,  we  require  that 
he  should  have  performed  miracles. 


1822]        SPEECH  ON  INDIAN  APPROPRIATIONS  19 

This  system  has  been  in  constant  and  in  vigorous  operation 
since  1802.  For  six  years  before  the  passage  of  the  last  appro- 
priation bill,  its  average  annual  expense  had  been  more  than 
$235,000.  That  bill  did  not  pass  until  the  3d  of  March.  Before 
that  time,  it  has  not  been  alleged  that  there  had  been  a  whisper 
of  disapprobation  against  the  former  appropriations  for  the  In- 
dian department.  On  the  contrary,  during  that  period,  $200,000 
at  least  had  been  appropriated  every  year ;  and,  in  addition,  large 
deficiencies  had  been  supplied  without  a  murmur.  1*he  Secretary, 
acting  under  a  firm  conviction  that  the  same  system  would  be 
pursued,  had  taken  the  measures  necessary  to  continue  its  motion 
for  another  year,  some  time  before  the  passage  of  the  bill.  The 
places  at  which  the  money  was  principally  to  be  expended,  were 
agencies  upon  the  borders  of  your  vast  empire,  far  beyond  the 
utmost  limits  of  civilization.  The  distance  to  many  of  them  is  so 
remote,  and  the  communication  so  precarious,  that  the  Secretary 
has  informed  you  they  cannot  be  heard  from  more  than  twice, 
and  often  but  once,  in  the  whole  course  of  the  year. 

Could  the  motion  of  this  vast  machinery  be  at  once  sus- 
pended ?  In  the  beautiful  language  of  the  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina  (Mr.  Lowndes),  it  had  received  its  impulse  before  the 
passage  of  the  bill,  and  the  momentum  could  not  be  withdrawn 
from  it  in  a  shorter  period  of  time  than  one  year.  To  require 
the  Secretary,  therefore,  to  stop  it  immediately,  would  have  been 
asking  him  to  do  that  which  was  utterly  impossible. 

These,  Mr.  Chairman,  are  the  remarks  which  I  conceived 
it  to  be  my  duty  to  make  on  the  subject  now  before  the  Commit- 
tee. I  have,  personally,  no  feeling  of  partiality  for  the  Secretary 
of  War,  nor  of  prejudice  against  him.  I  view  him  merely  as  a 
public  character;  and,  in  that  capacity,  I  conscientiously  believe, 
that,  upon  the  present  occasion,  he  has  done  his  duty,  and  acted 
in  the  only  manner  in  which  he  could  constitutionally  act.  In  my 
opinion,  therefore,  he  deserves  applause  instead  of  censure. 

One  other  view  of  the  subject,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  shall 
have  done.  In  whatever  light  the  conduct  of  the  Secretary  may 
appear,  still  the  deficit  ought  to  be  supplied.  This  case  does  not 
require  such  an  argument;  but  suppose,  for  a  moment,  he  had 
acted  improperly,  is  this  one  of  those  extreme  cases — for,  I  admit, 
that  such  may  possibly  exist — in  which  the  House  should  withhold 
an  appropriation  to  supply  a  deficiency  ?  Will  any  gentleman  say, 
that  individuals  who  have  fairly  and  honestly  entered  into  con- 
tracts with  your  Secretary  of  War,  on  the  faith  of  the  Govern- 


20  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

ment,  shall  suffer?  Surely  you  would  not  impose  the  task  on 
every  person  who  binds  himself  by  agreement,  to  perform  services 
for  the  Government,  to  inquire  whether  the  appropriation  made  by 
Congress  justified  his  employment.  If  you  did,  he  then  becomes 
responsible — for  what,  in  the  nature  of  things,  cannot  be  within 
his  knowledge.  To  enable  him  to  ascertain  whether  he  might 
safely  contract  with  the  head  of  one  of  your  Executive  Depart- 
ments, he  should  be  informed  not  only  of  the  amount  of  appro- 
priations, but  in  what  manner  their  expenditure  has  proceeded, 
and  is  proceeding,  in  every  part  of  the  Union.  It  would  be  crying 
injustice  to  inform  the  men  who  have  abandoned  civilized  life, 
and  undergone  all  the  dangers,  the  hardships,  and  the  privations 
of  dwelling  among  savages  in  the  wilderness,  for  the  purpose  of 
promoting  the  interest  and  the  glory  of  their  country,  that  they 
shall  receive  no  compensation  for  their  services,  because  the  Secre- 
tary who  employed  them  has  exceeded  his  appropriation.  This 
would  be  making  the  innocent  suffer  instead  of  the  guilty.  If, 
therefore,  there  has  been  any  impropriety  in  the  conduct  of  the 
Secretary,  as  some  gentlemen  have  insinuated,  but  which  I  utterly 
deny,  it  is  a  question  which  should  be  settled  between  you  and 
him,  and  one  in  the  decisions  of  which  the  rights  of  the  persons 
employed  under  his  authority  ought  not  to  be  involved.  Indeed, 
no  gentleman  has  yet  said  these  men  ought  not  to  be  paid  out  of 
the  public  Treasury.  Why,  then,  considering  this  question  in 
every  point  of  view  in  which  it  can  be  presented,  is  there  any 
objection  against  voting  $70,000  to  supply  the  deficiency  in  the 
appropriation  of  the  last  year  ?  I  hope  it  will  pass  without  further 
difficulty.1 


RESOLUTION  AND  REMARKS,  JANUARY  24,1822, 

ON  MILITIA  FINES.2 

January  24,  1822,  Mr.  Buchanan  submitted  for  consideration 
the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to 
inquire  and  report  to  this  House  the  causes  why  no  part  of  the  sum  of 
$243,609.41,  the  amount  imposed  as  fines  by  courts-martial  held  under  the 


1  January  11,  1822,  the  debate  continuing,  Buchanan  made  some  remarks 
in  opposition  to  a  motion  to  postpone  consideration  of  the  bill  till  certain 
information  should  be  obtained  from  the  Secretary  of  War.  (Annals  of 
Congress,  17  Cong.  1  Sess.  1821-1822,  I.  704-708.) 

2  Annals  of  Congress,  17  Cong.  1  Sess.  1821-1822,  I.  787-789. 


1822]  MILITIA  FINES  21 

authority  of  the  United  States  on  militiamen  within  the  Commonwealth  of 
Pennsylvania,  for  delinquencies  which  occurred  during  the  late  war  with 
Great  Britain,  has  yet  been  received  into  the  Treasury;  how  much  of  the 
said  sum  has  been  collected  from  the  delinquents  by  the  late  marshal  and  the 
present  marshals  of  Pennsylvania,  and  their  deputies,  respectively,  and  what 
are  the  names  and  places  of  residence  of  such  deputies;  how  much  of  the 
money  collected  remains  in  the  hands  of  the  deputies,  and  how  much  has 
been  paid  over  by  them  to  their  respective  principals;  who  are  the  sureties 
of  the  late  marshal  John  Smith,  and  of  his  deputies,  respectively;  what  is 
the  amount  of  each  of  their  bonds,  and  what  is  the  prospect  of  recovering 
the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  money  remaining  in  their  hands;  what  causes 
have  heretofore  prevented  the  institution  of  suits  against  the  said  John 
Smith,  his  deputies,  and  their  sureties,  to  recover  the  militia  fines  retained 
by  them,  respectively;  and  under  what  authority,  by  whom  and  to  whom,  the 
sum  of  $41,531.77  has  been  paid  out  of  the  said  fines  to  defray  the  expenses 
of  the  courts-martial  by  which  they  were  assessed. 

In  offering  this  resolution,  Mr.  Buchanan  said,  that  a  sense 
of  duty,  and  not  a  desire  to  give  trouble  and  cast  reflections  upon 
any  officer  of  this  Government,  compelled  him  to  bring  before  this 
House  the  subject  of  the  collection  of  militia  fines  from  delinquent 
militiamen  in  Pennsylvania.  He  would,  he  said,  state  the  facts 
connected  with  it,  and  which  were  so  many  reasons  why  the  reso- 
lution should  pass,  without  doing  more  at  the  present  time.  The 
State  of  Pennsylvania  during  the  late  war  furnished  her  full  pro- 
portion of  men  and  of  money  to  the  General  Government  to 
enable  them  to  carry  on  the  contest.  She  furnished  more  than 
her  quota  of  volunteers  and  militia.  It  however  happened,  that, 
owing  to  the  pious  and  peaceful  habits  of  the  people  of  that  State, 
conscientiously  scrupulous  of  bearing  arms,  there  occurred,  in 
obtaining  the  number  of  men  required  by  draught,  a  great  number 
of  delinquencies ;  which  were  more  than  made  up  by  volunteers. 
It  followed,  therefore,  that  while  Pennsylvania,  as  a  State,  can 
with  pride  and  with  pleasure  declare  that  she  fulfilled,  in  the  most 
ample  manner,  all  her  federal  obligations,  yet  there  was  a  very 
large  proportion  of  her  citizens  fined  as  delinquent  militiamen. 
From  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  of  February  14,  1821, 
it  appeared  that  out  of  nine  States,  on  the  citizens  of  which  militia 
fines  were  assessed,  and  from  eight  of  which  returns  have  been 
received,  the  fines  assessed  on  citizens  of  Pennsylvania  amount 
to  a  larger  sum  than  all  the  fines  assessed  on  the  citizens  of  seven 
of  the  States : 

The  assessment  on  Pennsylvania  amounted  to $243,609.41 

On    New    Hampshire,    New    York,    Maryland,    Virginia, 

Ohio,  Kentucky,  East  Tennessee,  West  Tennessee,  to  240,076 


22  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

These  fines  were  assessed,  chiefly,  if  not  altogether,  within 
the  years  1813,  181 4,  and  181 5;  and,  strange  and  wonderful  as 
it  may  appear,  not  one  cent  of  that  large  amount  assessed  on 
citizens  of  Pennsylvania  has  yet  reached  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  within  my  knowledge,  said  Mr.  B.,  that 
very  large  sums  of  this  money  have  been  collected  by  the  deputy 
marshals,  and  much  distress  has  been  spread  over  the  country  in 
levying  these  fines  from  the  poorer  classes  of  the  citizens  within 
our  State.  It  is  very  natural  that  every  State  in  the  Union, 
particularly  Pennsylvania,  should  be  anxious  to  have  the  darkness 
which  hangs  over  this  subject  dispelled,  and  the  guilty  agents 
exposed  to  the  light  of  day.  It  is  possible  that  by  an  investi- 
gation something  may  be  obtained;  if  not,  the  authors  of  the 
shameful  frauds  which  have  been  perpetrated  will  be  dragged 
from  the  concealment  in  which  they  now  lurk.  On  the  4th  of 
December,  1820,  at  the  instance  of  a  gentleman  from  Pennsyl- 
vania, a  resolution  was  passed  by  this  House  calling  on  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  for  information  on  the  subject,  which  for 
some  cause  or  other  remained  unanswered,  but  on  the  2d  of 
January,  1821,  was  renewed.  And,  said  Mr.  B.,  what  answer  has 
been  given  to  it?  It  consists  of  six  clauses,  answers  to  which 
would  embrace  all  the  information  we  desire.  The  answer  to  the 
first  is  a  letter  from  the  present  marshal,  which  Mr.  B.  read ;  from 
which,  he  said,  it  appeared,  that  almost  three  years  had  been  suf- 
fered to  expire  since  this  communication,  and  it  does  not  appear 
that  any  measures  have  been  taken  to  secure  the  books  and  papers. 

The  department  could  therefore  communicate  no  information 
on  the  subject.  The  second  query,  how  much  money  had  been 
received  into  the  Treasury,  on  account  of  these  fines,  was  easily 
answered;  not  a  cent  had  been  received.  The  third  query  the 
department  is  unable  to  answer,  except  that  $3,671.30  in  the  hands 
of  the  present  marshal,  and  $2,546.60  in  the  hands  of  Lewis 
Deffebach,  one  of  his  deputies  in  Bucks  county.  The  fourth 
query,  as  to  the  names  of  the  deputies  and  the  sureties  of  the  late 
marshal,  was  not  answered.  Indeed,  it  appeared  that  the  depart- 
ment never  either  inquired  or  knew  who  were  the  sureties 
of  the  marshal,  or  who  were  his  deputies  or  sureties.  It 
appeared,  further,  that  no  action  had  ever  yet  been  instituted 
against  the  late  marshal  or  his  deputies  on  these  bonds,  except 
against  one  of  the  deputies.  The  object,  therefore,  Mr.  B.  said, 
of  his  resolution,  was  to  obtain  the  information  which  the  former 
vote  of  the  House  had  failed  to  procure,  &c. 


1822]  MILITIA  FINES  23 

The  motion  of  Mr.  B.  was  agreed  to,  and  Messrs.  Buchanan, 
Moore  of  Pennsylvania,  Nelson  of  Maryland,  Durfee,  and  Rich, 
were  appointed  the  committee. 

The  committee  reported,  April  25,  1822.1  It  is  not  stated  by  whom  the 
report  was  drawn,  but  it  probably  was  done  by  Mr.  Buchanan.  It  covers  15 
printed  pages,  and  recommends  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  to  the  effect  that 
the  uncollected  militia  fines  due  from  delinquents  in  the  State  of  Pennsyl- 
vania which  had  been  assessed  by  courts-martial,  and  all  fines  collected  by 
the  late  or  present  marshals  of  Pennsylvania,  or  their  deputies,  which  had  not 
been  paid  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  or  applied  to  the  payment 
of  the  expenses  of  courts-martial,  be  transferred  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania, 
with  full  power  to  collect  them.  The  report  referred  to  the  subject  as  one 
involved  in  "  mystery,"  on  account  of  the  total  neglect  for  so  long  a  time  of 
the  proper  public  officers  to  give  it  attention.  The  committee's  recommenda- 
tion appears  to  have  been  in  accord  with  a  resolution  of  the  legislature  of 
Pennsylvania,  passed  on  the  29th  of  March.  The  report  stated  that  there 
could  be  no  doubt  that  the  President  possessed  the  power  to  call  forth  the 
militia,  and  that  the  federal  government  had  a  right  to  the  fines  assessed  on 
individuals  as  a  punishment  for  disobeying  such  a  call,  but  it  was  argued 
that  Pennsylvania  had  furnished  during  the  war  more  than  the  number  of 
militia  required  for  the  service  of  the  federal  government;  that  of  the 
men  thus  furnished  a  considerable  proportion  were  volunteers;  that,  in 
procuring  the  residue  by  draft,  the  number  of  delinquents  was  so  great  that 
the  fines  assessed  amounted  to  the  sum  of  $346,367;  that,  as  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania  had  more  than  complied  with  all  her  federal  obligations,  it 
would  be  unjust  to  collect  in  addition  the  large  sum  above  stated;  that  the 
federal  officials  would  in  any  event  be  able  to  collect  probably  only  a  small 
amount  from  the  delinquents  who  were  scattered  over  the  surface  of  an 
extensive  State;  that  the  State  might  be  able,  through  its  county  officers, 
to  collect  a  small  proportion  of  the  fines,  and  that  a  relinquishment  to  her 
would  be  a  benefit  to  the  State  without  doing  any  injury  to  the  United  States. 
It  was  also  pointed  out  that  the  act  of  Congress  of  1795,  although  it  provided 
for  the  punishment  of  delinquent  militiamen  by  courts-martial,  did  not  specify 
how  such  courts  should  be  organized;  that  the  militia  law  of  Pennsylvania 
supplied  this  defect,  and  that  the  fines  were  therefore  assessed  by  virtue  of 
the  joint  operation  of  both  acts;  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President,  as 
shown  by  a  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  authorities  of  Pennsylvania 
of  April  14,  1818,  the  power  of  remitting  the  fines  in  question  was  not  in 
fact  vested  in  him,  but  in  the  governor  of  Pennsylvania;  that  the  governor 
had  uniformly  exercised  this  power,  and  that  the  fines  in  question  might  at 
any  time  all  be  remitted  by  him. 


1  House  Report  97,  17  Cong.  1  Sess. 


24  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

SPEECH,  MARCH  12,  1822, 

ON  THE  BANKRUPTCY  BILL.1 

Mr.  Speaker  :  Before  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Kentucky  had  obtained  the  sanction  of  this  House, 
the  question  whether  the  bill  should  be  engrossed  for  a  third  read- 
ing was  one  of  very  great  importance.  That  question  has,  how- 
ever, dwindled  into  insignificance  compared  with  the  one  at  pres- 
ent under  consideration.  We  are  now  called  upon  to  decide  the 
fate  of  a  measure  of  awful  importance.  The  most  dreadful  re- 
sponsibility rests  upon  us.  We  are  not  now  to  determine  merely 
whether  a  bankrupt  law  shall  be  extended  to  the  trading  classes  of 
the  community  but  whether  it  shall  embrace  every  citizen  of  this 
Union  and  spread  its  demoralizing  influence  over  the  whole 
surface  of  society. 

The  amendment  which  has  been  adopted  to-day  makes  it 
my  imperative  duty,  even  at  this  protracted  period  of  the  debate, 
to  trespass  upon  the  patience  of  the  House.  I  have  the  honor  in 
part  of  representing  an  honest,  a  wealthy,  and  a  respectable,  agri- 
cultural community.  I  owe  it  to  them,  to  my  conscience  and  to 
my  God  not  to  suffer  this  bill  to  pass,  which  I  conceive  to  be  now 
fraught  with  destruction  to  their  best  interests,  both  moral  and 
political,  without  entering  my  solemn  protest  against  its 
provisions. 

We  have  heard  it  repeated  over  and  over  again  by  the  friends 
of  a  bankrupt  bill  that  it  should  be  confined  to  the  mercantile 
classes.  One  of  the  principal  arguments  urged  in  its  favor  by 
its  eloquent  supporters,  was  that  merchants  from  the  nature  of 
their  pursuits  were  exposed  to  the  vicissitudes  of  fortune  more 
than  other  men,  and  that,  therefore,  their  situation  required  a 
peculiar  system  of  laws.  That  in  this  country  their  fortunes  had 
not  only  been  exposed  to  the  dangers  commonly  incident  to  their 
profession,  but  that  the  commercial  regulations  of  the  government, 
the  embargo,  the  non-intercourse  laws,  and,  finally  the  war,  had 
brought  ruin  upon  thousands.  It  was,  therefore,  inferred  that 
Congress  were  under  a  moral  obligation  to  pass  a  bankrupt  law 
for  their  relief. 


Annals  of  Congress,  17  Cong.  1  Sess.  1821-1822,  II.  1281-1297. 
Buchanan,  in  an  autobiographical  sketch  given  in  the  last  volume  of  this 
publication,  says:  "This  was  one  of  the  best  speeches  I  ever  delivered  in 
Congress.  ...  I  was  replied  to  by  Mr.  Wright  of  Maryland,  when  the 
question  was  taken  by  ayes  and  noes  and  decided  against  the  bill  by  a  vote 
of  99  to  72" 


1822]  THE  BANKRUPTCY  BILL  25 

The  policy  of  all  the  modern  commercial  nations  in  the 
world  was  presented  before  us  for  our  imitation;  England, 
France,  Scotland,  Ireland,  Holland,  and  Spain,  we  had  been  told, 
each  extended  a  bankrupt  law  to  the  merchant,  and  absolved  him 
from  the  payment  of  his  debts  upon  certain  conditions.  Indeed, 
a  great  portion  of  the  argument  consisted  in  drawing  a  line  of 
distinction  between  traders  and  the  remaining  classes  of  society. 

Judge  then,  Mr.  Speaker,  of  my  astonishment  when,  to-day, 
I  found  those  very  gentlemen  voting  in  favor  of  introducing  an 
amendment  extending  the  provisions  of  this  bill  to  every  indi- 
vidual in  society  who  might  ask  to  become  its  object. 

Will  you  pass  a  bankrupt  law  for  the  farmer?  Will  you 
teach  that  vast  body  of  your  best  citizens  to  disregard  the  faith 
of  contracts  ?  Are  you  prepared  to  sanction  a  principle  by  which 
the  whole  mass  of  society  will  be  in  danger  of  being  demoralized, 
and  it  will  be  left  to  an  election  by  every  man's  creditors,  in  which 
a  majority  of  two-thirds  in  number  and  value,  against  the  consent 
of  the  remainder,  shall  have  the  power  of  discharging  him  from 
the  obligation  of  all  his  contracts  ?  Surely  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives are  not  prepared  to  answer  these  questions  in  the 
affirmative.  No  nation  in  the  world,  whether  commercial  or 
agricultural,  whether  civilized  or  savage,  has  ever  for  a  moment 
entertained  the  idea  of  extending  the  operation  of  their  bankrupt 
laws  beyond  the  class  of  traders.  Fortunately  for  our  constit- 
uents, we  have  not  the  power  of  doing  so.  The  Constitution  cor- 
rectly expounded  has  proclaimed,  "  hitherto  shalt  thou  go,  but 
no  farther."  Nothing  but  a  desperate  effort  to  revive  this  expir- 
ing bill  could  have  ever  induced  its  friends  to  have  adopted  the 
amendment  which  has  just  now  been  carried. 

In  the  discussion  of  this  question,  I  can  assure  the  House, 
it  is  not  my  intention  to  travel  over  the  ground  which  has  been 
already  occupied,  or  to  repeat  the  arguments  which  have  been 
already  urged. 

The  subject  naturally  divides  itself  into  two  questions — the 
one  of  Constitutional  power,  the  other  of  policy.  On  the  first, 
as  the  bill  stood  before  the  introduction  of  the  last  amendment, 
I  had  not  a  single  doubt.  Much  as  I  would  have  deprecated  the 
passage  of  the  then  bill,  I  should  have  been  infinitely  more  alarmed 
if  this  House  had  determined  that  the  enactment  of  such  a  law 
transcended  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress.  Upon  this 
branch  of  the  subject,  the  ingenious  arguments  of  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  had  not  created  a  doubt  in  my  mind.     Where 


26  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

doubts  before  did  exist,  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina  (Mr.  Lowndes),  and  of  my  honorable  colleague 
(Mr.  Sergeant)  were,  in  my  opinion,  calculated  entirely  to  re- 
move them,  and  to  carry  conviction  to  every  understanding. 

A  new  question  of  constitutional  power  has  now  arisen  on 
the  amendment.  The  Constitution  declares  that  "  the  Congress 
shall  have  power  to  establish  uniform  laws  on  the  subject  of  bank- 
ruptcies throughout  the  United  States."  To  this  provision  I  am 
willing  to  give  a  fair  and  a  liberal  construction.  Congress  have 
the  power  to  discharge  from  their  debts  on  the  terms  prescribed 
by  the  bill,  all  persons  upon  whom  a  law  emanating  from  this 
clause  of  the  Constitution  may  legitimately  act.  But  can  Con- 
gress make  a  law  extending  the  penalties  and  the  privileges  of  a 
bankrupt  system  to  every  individual  in  society?  Can  they  em- 
brace in  its  provision  the  farmer,  the  clergyman,  the  physician, 
or  the  lawyer  ?  Such  a  proposition  was  never  seriously  contended 
for  before  this  day. 

By  considering  the  meaning  of  the  term  bankrupt,  we  shall 
be  able  at  once  to  solve  the  difficulty.  In  adverting  to  its  origin, 
we  find  the  literal  signification  of  the  word  to  be  a  broken  counter, 
which  by  a  figure  of  speech  has  been  applied  in  our  language  to 
a  broken  merchant.  In  the  commercial  laws  of  all  the  nations 
of  the  continent  of  Europe,  bankruptcy  is  confined  to  merchants  in 
the  strictest  sense  of  the  word.  The  operation  of  the  bankrupt 
laws  of  England  has  been  extended  by  judicial  construction  some- 
what further,  and  they  now  embrace  within  their  grasp,  not  only 
the  merchant  properly  so  called,  but  all  persons  who  are  traders, 
and  are  concerned  in  buying  and  selling  any  kind  of  merchandise, 
unless  they  have  been  expressly  excepted  by  some  positive  legis- 
lative provision.  This  exposition  of  the  law  extends  not  only 
to  those  who  sell  any  commodity  in  the  same  state  in  which  they 
purchased  it,  but  also  to  the  manufacturer  and  the  mechanic  who 
bestow  upon  it  their  labor  and  their  skill,  and  thus  render  it  more 
valuable.  The  bill,  as  it  formerly  stood,  confined  itself  strictly 
within  this  range.  Indeed,  it  was  more  circumscribed  as  to  the 
persons  on  whom  it  would  have  operated  than  the  bankrupt  laws 
of  England. 

I  am  willing,  then,  to  expound  the  power  of  Congress  upon 
the  subject  liberally.  In  construing  the  Constitution,  Congress 
ought  not  to  be  fettered  by  nice  technical  rules.  I  admit  that  they 
have  the  power,  whenever  they  think  proper  to  call  it  into  exer- 
cise, of  establishing  a  system  of  bankruptcy  which  shall  embrace 


1822]  THE  BANKRUPTCY  BILL  27 

all  persons  who  have  ever  been  embraced  even  by  the  bankrupt 
laws  of  England.  Further  than  this  they  cannot  proceed,  without 
extending  the  plain  meaning  of  the  word,  bankruptcy,  as  it  has 
been  received  by  every  commercial  nation  of  Europe,  and  violating 
both  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution. 

In  making  this  admission,  I  am  sensible  that  many  may  sup- 
pose I  am  giving  a  latitude  of  construction  to  the  instrument 
which  is  not  warranted  by  its  spirit. 

The  authority  "  to  establish  uniform  laws  on  the  subject  of 
bankruptcies  throughout  the  United  States,"  is  contained  in  a 
clause  of  the  Constitution,  which  immediately  follows  that  "  to 
regulate  commerce  with  Foreign  Nations,  and  among  the  several 
States,  and  with  the  Indian  tribes."  The  power  over  bankruptcy 
evidently  originated  from,  and  is  closely  connected  with  that  over 
commerce.  This  commerce  which  Congress  has  the  power  of 
regulating,  is  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  conducted  by  merchants, 
in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  term,  and  principally  by  that  class  of 
them  denominated  importers.  They  are  the  men  most  exposed 
to  the  vicissitudes  of  trade,  and,  on  that  account,  are  more  prop- 
erly the  object  of  such  a  law  than  people  of  any  other  description. 
It  might,  therefore,  with  much  plausibility,  be  contended,  that  the 
power  of  Congress  over  bankruptcy  is  confined  to  that  description 
of  merchants. 

Another  argument,  which  would  give  additional  strength  to 
this  construction,  arises  from  the  general  spirit  of  the  Federal 
Institutions.  They  do  not  propose  to  embrace  the  internal  policy 
of  the  States.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  federal  courts  is  confined 
by  the  Constitution  to  controversies  between  citizens  of  the  dif- 
ferent States,  and  between  foreigners  and  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  To  such  suits  the  merchants  who  carry  on  the  intercourse 
with  foreign  nations,  and  between  the  different  States,  are  most 
generally  parties. 

The  object  which  I  have  in  view  in  using  these  arguments, 
is  not  to  prove  that  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  is  con- 
fined to  such  merchants,  but  to  show  that  it  is  contrary  to  the 
nature  and  the  spirit  of  our  government  to  extend  it  to  all  classes 
of  people  in  the  community.  The  bill  as  it  stood  before  the 
amendment,  went  quite  far  enough.  It  would  even  then  have 
brought  the  operation  of  the  law,  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  fed- 
eral courts  into  the  bosom  of  every  community.  The  bill,  how- 
ever, as  it  now  stands,  if  it  should  pass,  will  entirely  destroy  the 
symmetry  of  our  system,  and  make  those  courts  the  arbiters, 


28  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

in  almost  every  case  of  contract  to  which  any  member  of  society, 
who  thinks  proper  to  become  a  bankrupt,  may  be  a  party.  It 
will  at  once  be,  in  a  great  degree,  a  judicial  consolidation  of  the 
Union.  This  was  never  intended  by  the  framers  of  the  Consti- 
tution. Some  of  the  terrible  evils  which  would  flow  from  such 
a  system,  I  shall  have  occasion  to  delineate,  when  I  come  to  speak 
of  the  policy  of  its  adoption. 

Before,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  proceed  to  expose  to  the  view  of  the 
House  those  objections  against  this  bill  which  have  presented 
themselves  with  peculiar  force  to  my  mind,  permit  me  to  answer 
some  of  the  principal  arguments  which  have  been  urged  in  favor 
of  its  passage.  My  friend  and  colleague  from  Pennsylvania, 
in  his  concluding  speech,  has  made  such  a  clear,  forcible,  and 
eloquent  argument  in  favor  of  the  bill,  that  I  fear  it  has  produced 
a  considerable  effect.  Upon  this  occasion  he  was  listened  to,  as 
he  always  is,  and  always  deserves  to  be,  with  the  most  profound 
attention.  It  is  painful  to  me  to  be  under  the  necessity  of  differ- 
ing from  him  in  opinion,  and  when  I  do  so,  I  am  almost  inclined 
to  distrust  my  own  judgment.  Nothing,  therefore,  but  an  im- 
perative sense  of  duty  could  have  induced  me  to  take  any  part  in 
the  debate  upon  the  present  occasion. 

It  has  been  urged  that,  as  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
gave  to  Congress  the  power  of  passing  a  bankrupt  law,  we  are 
bound  to  put  that  power  into  practical  operation,  and  not  suffer 
it  to  remain  dormant. 

In  answer  to  this  argument  I  would  reply,  that  power  and 
duty  are  very  different  in  their  nature.  Power  is  optional,  duty 
imperative.  The  language  of  power  is  that  you  may,  that  of 
duty  you  must.  The  Constitution  has,  in  the  same  section,  and 
in  the  same  terms,  given  to  Congress  the  power  to  declare  war,  to 
borrow  money,  to  raise  and  support  armies,  &c.  Will  any  gentle- 
man, however,  undertake  to  say,  we  are  under  an  obligation  to 
give  life  and  energy  to  these  powers  by  bringing  them  into  action  ? 
Will  it  be  contended  that,  because  we  possess  the  power  of  declar- 
ing war  and  borrowing  money,  that  we  are  under  a  moral  obli- 
gation to  embroil  ourselves  with  foreign  Governments,  or  load 
the  country  with  a  national  debt?  Should  any  individual  act 
upon  the  principle  that  it  is  his  duty  to  do  everything  which  he 
has  the  legal  power  of  doing,  he  would  soon  make  himself  a  fit 
citizen  for  a  madhouse. 

Power,  whether  vested  in  Congress  or  in  an  individual, 
necessarily  implies  the  right  of  exercising  a  sound  discretion. 


1822]  THE  BANKRUPTCY  BILL  29 

The  Constitution  was  intended  not  only  for  us,  and  for  those  who 
have  gone  before  us,  but  for  generations  yet  to  come.  It  has 
vested  in  Congress  ample  powers,  to  be  called  into  action  when- 
ever, in  their  sound  discretion,  they  believe  the  interest  or  the 
happiness  of  the  people  require  their  exertion.  We  are,  therefore, 
left  to  exercise  our  judgment  on  this  subject,  entirely  untram- 
melled by  any  Constitutional  injunction. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  passage  of  such  a  bill  as  the  one 
now  before  us  is  necessary,  on  account  of  the  numerous  frauds 
which  are  perpetrated  under  the  insolvent  laws  of  the  States, 
and  the  preference  which  they  authorize  a  failing  debtor  to  give 
to  particular  creditors. 

For  the  forcible  manner  in  which  this  argument  has  been 
urged,  one  would  be  induced  to  suppose  that  the  legislative 
authority  of  the  States,  upon  this  subject,  had  been  entirely  pros- 
trated by  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  case  of  Sturges  vs.  Crowninshield.  This  is,  however,  alto- 
gether a  mistake.  The  citizens  of  the  States  have  not  been  left 
exposed  to  the  mercy  of  fraudulent  debtors.  They  can  look  to 
their  own  legislatures  for  relief.  Their  power  to  pass  bankrupt 
laws  is  as  ample  within  their  several  States  as  that  of  Congress, 
with  one  single  exception:  which  is,  that  such  laws  shall  not 
contain  a  provision  "  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts." 
This  tremendous  power  the  people  have  decreed  that  the  States 
shall  not  exercise.  With  the  exception,  therefore,  of  that  portion 
of  this  bill  which  discharges  a  bankrupt  from  his  debts,  the  Legis- 
latures of  the  several  States  might,  if  they  thought  proper,  enact 
all  its  provisions.  They  have  the  same  power  to  pass  every 
law  for  the  prevention  and  punishment  of  the  frauds  of  insolvent 
traders  which  Congress  possess.  They  can  equally  annul  all 
preferences  which  a  failing  debtor  may  give  to  a  favorite  creditor, 
whether  by  deed  of  trust,  by  judgment,  or  in  any  other  manner. 
This  principle  is  expressly  recognized  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  which  I  have 
cited.  There  is  then  no  necessity  that  Congress  should  interfere 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  creditor ;  yet  this  has  been  urged 
as  one  of  the  principal  reasons  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  a 
bankrupt  bill. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  many  of  the  States  have  neglected 
to  exercise  the  authority  which  they  fully  possess  over  this  sub- 
ject. In  the  State,  one  of  whose  representatives  I  have  the  honor 
to  be,  a  failing  debtor  of  every  description  possesses  too  much 


30  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  {1822 

power  in  the  distribution  of  his  property.  He  may,  if  he  chooses, 
secure  one  creditor  at  the  expense  of  all  the  rest.  He  is  the  sole 
judge  of  the  propriety  of  any  preference  which  he  may  think 
proper  to  make.  The  Legislature  of  that,  and  of  every  other 
State  where  a  similar  evil  exists,  can  however  apply  the  remedy, 
if  they  think  proper.  Why  then  has  it  been  urged  upon  us,  that 
it  is  absolutely  necessary  Congress  should  pass  this  bill,  to  secure 
creditors  against  the  frauds  and  the  preferences  which  exist  under 
the  insolvent  laws  of  the  States,  when  the  States  themselves 
possess  ample  powers  to  attain  the  same  ends? 

It  has  been  said,  truly,  that  Congress  alone  can  pass  a  bank- 
rupt law  which  will  be  uniform  over  the  United  States.  But, 
I  would  ask,  whether  the  benefits  resulting  from  the  uniformity 
which  the  law  must  possess  would  not  be  more  nominal  than  real, 
whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  it  would  be  a  source  of  the  most  serious 
inconveniences  ?  Is  it  correct  legislation  to  force  upon  the  citizens 
of  one  State  a  system  of  internal  policy,  deeply  affecting  the  rights 
of  creditor  and  debtor,  which  may  be  ruinous  and  demoralizing 
to  them,  because  it  may  promote  the  prosperity  of  another  State? 
All  laws  should  be  adapted  to  the  character  and  to  the  habits  of 
those  on  whom  they  are  designed  to  operate.  Upon  this  prin- 
ciple of  uniformity,  which  must  be  introduced  into  any  bill  that 
you  have  the  power  of  passing,  you  are  obliged  to  adapt  your  citi- 
zens to  the  law,  not  the  law  to  your  citizens.  Will  any  gentleman 
say,  that  the  same  internal  political  regulations,  respecting  creditor 
and  debtor,  should  exist  in  each  of  the  States  composing  this  vast 
Union  ?  For  example,  would  the  same  laws  be  suited  to  the  man- 
ners and  to  the  habits  of  the  citizens  of  Louisiana  which  might 
be  beneficial  in  the  State  of  Maine  ?  This  necessity  for  uniform- 
ity, in  legislating  upon  the  subject  of  bankruptcy,  reminds  me  of 
the  bed  of  Procrustes.  He  made  every  person  of  every  size  fit  it. 
If  they  were  too  long  for  its  dimensions,  he  lopped  off  their  limbs; 
if  too  short,  he  stretched  them  to  the  proper  length. 

The  uniformity  which  must  exist  in  any  law  that  we  have 
the  power  of  passing,  shows,  in  a  forcible  point  of  view,  the  pro- 
priety of  State  legislation  upon  the  subject,  in  preference  to  that 
of  Congress,  it  will  be  better  adapted  to  the  peculiar  habits  of 
the  citizens  of  the  respective  States. 

It  has  been  urged,  as  an  objection  to  State  legislation,  that, 
as  they  can  pass  no  law  impairing  the  obligation  of  contracts, 
they  cannot  discharge  a  bankrupt  from  his  debts.  This  is  cer- 
tainly true.     If,  therefore,  it  be  deemed  proper  that  the  States 


1822]  THE  BANKRUPTCY  BILL  31 

should  possess  that  power,  it  can  be  bestowed  on  them  by  an 
amendment  to  the  Constitution. 

On  this  part  of  the  subject  I  am  much  obliged  to  my  honor- 
able colleague  for  the  clear  and  forcible  distinction  which  he  has 
drawn  between  contracts,  and  the  means  of  enforcing  them — 
between  rights  and  remedies.  This  distinction  is  also  precisely 
marked  in  the  opinion  of  the  court  in  the  case  of  Sturges  and 
Crowninshield.  The  States,  it  is  true,  cannot  impair  the  obli- 
gation of  a  contract,  but  they  possess  a  discretionary  power,  to  a 
considerable  extent,  in  modifying  the  remedy  of  the  creditor.  I 
have  been  informed  that  no  species  of  execution  in  Rhode  Island 
will  touch  the  debtor's  real  estate,  yet  the  law  of  that  State,  in  this 
respect,  has  never  been  supposed  to  be  unconstitutional.  Why 
then  might  not  the  States,  if  they  thought  it  politic,  declare,  that, 
after  a  debtor  had  fairly  relinquished  all  his  property  for  the 
benefit  of  his  creditors,  in  such  a  manner  as  might  be  directed 
by  law,  their  process  of  execution  should  not  be  used  by  a  vindic- 
tive creditor  against  the  acquisitions  of  his  debtor  for  a  certain 
number  of  years,  and  then  only  against  a  part  of  them,  and  for 
the  common  benefit  of  all  the  creditors?  If  such  a  provision,  or 
one  of  a  similar  nature,  be  Constitutional — and  I  confess  I  can 
perceive  no  reason,  founded  either  upon  principle  or  precedent, 
sufficient  to  convince  me  that  it  would  not — the  States  already 
possess  the  power  of  relieving  an  honest  bankrupt  to  a  considerable 
extent.  This  is,  however,  a  delicate  subject,  on  which  I  wish  to 
express  no  decided  opinion.  How  far  a  State  may  proceed  con- 
stitutionally, in  controlling  the  process  of  her  own  courts,  has 
never  yet  been  determined.  The  precise  point,  at  which  the  power 
of  regulating  the  process  would  interfere  with  the  prohibition 
against  impairing  the  obligation  of  the  contract,  will  be  difficult 
to  ascertain. 

The  advocates  of  this  bill  have  presented  it  to  us  in  the  garb 
of  a  political  experiment.  Say  they,  its  duration  is  limited  to 
the  term  of  three  years.  It  must  then  die,  unless  its  existence 
shall  be  prolonged  by  the  joint  act  of  all  the  legislative  depart- 
ments. Its  enemies,  therefore,  ought  not  to  apprehend  serious 
evils  from  its  enactment. 

In  answer  to  this  suggestion,  it  may  be  observed,  that  legis- 
lative experiments  should  be  tried  with  extreme  caution.  An 
act  may  expire  in  three  years  by  its  own  limitation ;  you  may 
repeal  it  at  the  end  of  one,  should  its  operation  be  found 
injurious,  but  yet  its  pernicious  influence  may  last  for  ages.     If, 


32  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

by  expunging  a  law  from  your  statute  book,  you  would  efface  its 
effects  from  the  human  mind,  or  withdraw  its  influence  from  the 
human  character,  then,  indeed,  experiments  in  politics  would  be 
as  harmless  as  those  in  philosophy.  This,  however,  is  not  the 
case.  We  all  agree  that  the  bill,  if  it  should  pass,  is  what  may, 
with  propriety,  be  called  a  strong  measure.  It  is  not  a  mere 
theory.  Its  effects  upon  society  will  be  immediate,  and  either 
good  or  evil  to  a  great  extent.  Whether,  therefore,  it  shall  con- 
tinue but  three  years,  or  be  perpetual,  ought  not  much  to  influence 
the  decision  of  the  question. 

The  experience  of  other  countries,  respecting  bankrupt  laws, 
has  been  introduced  into  this  argument  by  the  friends  of  the  bill, 
for  the  purpose  of  furthering  their  views,  whilst,  on  the  other 
hand,  its  enemies  have  contended,  that  the  practical  operation 
of  the  bankrupt  law  of  England,  and  of  that  one  which  hereto- 
fore existed  in  this  country,  present  powerful  reasons  against 
the  passage  of  this  bill.  Into  this  controversy  I  will  not  enter, 
because  the  subject  has  been  already  fully  discussed.  There 
is,  however,  one  event  in  the  history  of  Pennsylvania  which 
speaks  volumes  against  the  passage  of  this  bill.  On  the  13th 
March,  1812,  the  Legislature  of  that  State,  after  much  solici- 
tation, passed  a  bankrupt  or  insolvent  law,  under  the  provisions 
of  which  debtors  were  to  be  relieved  from  the  obligation  of 
their  contracts.  The  operation  of  this  act  was  confined  to 
the  city  and  county  of  Philadelphia.  It  was  there  that  the  com- 
merce of  the  State  was  chiefly  conducted,  and  it  was  there  the 
merchants  resided  who  were  most  liable  to  be  ruined  by  the  fluc- 
tuations of  trade.  If  there  ever  was  a  place  where  a  fair  experi- 
ment could  have  been  made  of  the  effects  of  such  a  law,  Philadel- 
phia was  peculiarly  that  place.  What  was  the  consequence?  The 
act  would  have  expired  by  its  own  limitation  on  the  1st  of  April, 
1 8 14,  but  it  was  not  suffered  to  exist  one  month  beyond  the  next 
meeting  of  the  Legislature  after  its  passage.  It  was  repealed 
on  the  2 1st  December,  181 2.  I  am  now  informed,  by  my  col- 
league, (Mr.  Brown,)  who  was  then  a  member  of  the  Legislature, 
that  the  representatives  from  that  district,  who,  but  a  few  months 
before,  had  strained  every  nerve  to  procure  the  passage  of  the 
bill,  were  the  most  active  in  obtaining  its  repeal.  On  the  very 
first  day  of  the  session  they  presented  a  great  number  of  petitions 
from  their  constituents,  praying  that  the  law  might  no  longer 
be  suffered  to  exist.  Such  were  its  baneful  effects  in  so  short  a 
period  of  time.     Whilst  on  this  part  of  the  subject  I  will  merely 


1822]  THE  BANKRUPTCY  BILL  33 

add,  that  this  law  was  repealed  long  before  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  had  decided  that  the  States  had  not  the 
power  of  introducing  into  a  bankrupt  law  a  clause  discharging 
the  bankrupt  from  his  debts.  Before  this  decision  was  made,  the 
Supreme  Courts,  both  of  New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  had  held 
a  contrary  doctrine. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  lay  before  the  House  my  objections 
to  the  passage  of  this  bill.  As  it  now  stands,  certain  classes  of 
society  are  exposed  to  its  adverse  operation  upon  the  commission 
of  any  of  the  acts  of  bankruptcy  described  in  its  first  section. 
Every  individual  in  the  community,  including  those  embraced  by 
the  bill  previous  to  the  late  amendment,  may  become  voluntary 
bankrupts. 

It  will  be  necessary  here  briefly  to  inquire  who  may  be  de- 
clared bankrupts  against  their  will.  The  adverse  operation  of  the 
law  will  not  be  confined  to  wholesale  and  retail  merchants,  strictly 
speaking,  and  to  dealers  in  exchange,  bankers,  brokers,  factors, 
underwriters,  and  marine  insurers.  By  the  construction  which 
has  been  placed  upon  the  words,  "  other  person  actually  using 
the  trade  of  merchandise,  by  buying  and  selling  in  gross  or  by 
retail,"  not  only  every  dealer  in  any  article,  but  every  manufac- 
turer or  mechanic  who  purchases  any  material,  bestows  his  skill 
and  labor  upon  it,  and  sells  it  in  its  improved  state,  falls  within 
the  compulsory  branch  of  this  bill,  unless  expressly  excepted  by 
the  proviso  in  its  first  section.  Thus,  the  distiller  who  purchases 
grain,  converts  it  into  whiskey  and  sells  the  whiskey,  would  clearly 
be  within  its  operation.  The  miller,  also,  who  buys  wheat  and 
sells  it  converted  into  flour,  may  be  declared  a  bankrupt  against 
his  will.  These  cases  are  cited  only  as  examples  to  illustrate  the 
general  rule.     Each  individual  member  can  imagine  many  others. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  that  which  strikes  my  mind  as  a  radical 
objection  to  the  existence  of  this  or  any  other  adversary  bankrupt 
bill  in  the  United  States.  It  arises  from  the  nature  of  our  free 
institutions,  and  is  one  that  exists  in  no  other  country  on  the 
globe.  It  springs  out  of  the  best  principles  of  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution, and  it  cannot  be  removed  without  expunging  them  from 
the  instrument. 

In  what  manner  is  a  person  to  be  declared  a  bankrupt  by  the 
bill  now  before  the  House?  On  the  petition  of  any  creditor, 
accompanied  by  an  affidavit  of  the  truth  of  his  debt,  the  circuit 
or  district  judge  of  the  United  States  is  authorized  to  issue  a 
commission  of  bankruptcy.     The  alleged  bankrupt  may,  however, 

3 


34  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

appear  before  the  commissioners,  deny  that  he  has  committed  any 
•act  of  bankruptcy,  and  demand  a  trial  by  a  jury  of  his  country, 
before  the  judge  who  issued  the  commission.  This  is  a  right 
of  which  he  cannot  be  deprived  by  the  power  of  Congress.  In  the 
emphatic  language  of  the  Constitution,  "  he  shall  not  be  deprived 
of  his  life,  his  liberty,  or  his  property,  without  due  process  of 
law." 

This  trial  before  the  circuit  or  district  judge  may  and  prob- 
ably will,  in  a  majority  of  cases,  be  delayed  for  years  before  its 
final  termination.  In  free  governments  we  cannot  move  with  the 
celerity  of  despotism.  During  its  pendency,  what  becomes  of 
the  property  of  the  alleged  bankrupt  ?  He  cannot  be  dispossessed 
of  it  under  the  Constitution  of  the  country,  or  by  the  provisions 
of  this  bill,  until  the  jury  shall  have  convicted  him  of  some  one  of 
the  acts  of  bankruptcy  described  in  its  first  section.  But,  although 
it  cannot  be  wrested  from  him  until  after  the  event,  yet  the 
moment  the  commission  issues,  he,  in  effect,  loses  all  control  over 
his  estate.  The  reason  of  this  is,  that  by  the  provisions  of  the  bill 
all  intermediate  dispositions  made  by  the  debtor  of  his  property 
are  absolutely  void,  should  he  finally  be  declared  a  bankrupt. 
No  person,  therefore,  could  with  safety  in  the  meantime  enter  into 
any  contract  with  him,  or  purchase  any  part  of  his  estate.  From 
the  very  nature  of  an  adverse  bankrupt  system,  this  must  neces- 
sarily be  the  case.  If  it  were  not,  every  man  charged  with  having 
committed  an  act  of  bankruptcy  would  demand  a  trial  by  jury 
before  the  district  or  circuit  judge  of  the  United  States,  so  that 
during  its  pendency  he  might  have  an  opportunity  to  dispose  of 
his  property  as  he  thought  proper.  This  would  be  giving  a  legal 
sanction  to  the  very  evil  which  the  friends  of  the  bill  say  it  is 
chiefly  intended  to  remedy. 

What,  then,  is  the  situation  in  which  the  bill  places  every 
man  within  its  adverse  provisions  ?  Any  of  his  creditors  or  pre- 
tended creditors,  by  making  an  ex  parte  affidavit  of  the  truth  of 
his  debt,  without  ever  proving  by  his  own  oath  or  otherwise  any 
act  of  bankruptcy  against  him,  may  bring  upon  him  inevitable 
and  overwhelming  destruction.  If  envy  or  malice  against  him 
rankles  in  the  soul  of  any  enemy  who  either  is  his  creditor,  or  who 
will  swear  that  he  is,  that  enemy  may  wreak  his  vengeance  to  the 
full  extent  of  his  wishes,  by  having  a  commission  of  bankruptcy 
issued  against  him.  The  commission  itself  would  be  the  death- 
warrant  of  his  property,  notwithstanding  his  property  may  have 
been  sufficient  to  discharge  his  debts,  and  he  may  have  been  guilty 


1822]  THE  BANKRUPTCY  BILL  35 

of  no  act  of  bankruptcy.  If  he  submits  to  the  commission,  his 
credit  is  gone,  and  his  power  of  exertion  is  at  an  end  until  he  shall 
have  obtained  his  final  discharge.  If  he  does  not,  and  demands  a 
trial,  he  is,  during  its  pendency,  in  the  situation  of  Tantalus  in 
the  infernal  regions.  Although  he  may  be  surrounded  by  all  the 
comforts  of  life,  and  the  means  of  extricating  himself  from  his 
difficulties,  he  has  not  the  power  of  using  them.  If  he  should  be 
a  merchant,  his  counting-house  must  be  closed,  and  his  capital 
remain  idle,  awaiting  the  result  of  a  tedious  lawsuit.  If  he  be  a 
farmer  who  has  carried  on  a  distillery,  or  who  has  been  a  miller, 
or  retail  merchant,  he  cannot  dispose  of  an  acre  of  his  land,  or  any 
of  his  personal  property,  until  the  controversy  is  determined. 
Whether,  therefore,  he  submits  to  the  commission,  or  does  not, 
if  he  be  an  honest  man,  he  is  exposed  to  inevitable  ruin.  If  he 
be  a  fraudulent  debtor,  the  delay  of  the  trial  will  afford  him 
ample  time  and  opportunity  to  secrete  his  property,  and  place  it 
beyond  the  reach  of  his  creditors;  and  in  this  situation  he  will 
have  the  strongest  temptation  to  be  guilty  of  fraud. 

The  bankrupt  law  of  England,  the  model  from  which  the 
present  bill  has  been  drawn,  provides  an  effectual  remedy  for  this 
evil.  It  is  one,  however,  which  we  have  no  constitutional  power 
to  adopt;  and  if  we  had,  it  would  be  repugnant  to  every  feeling 
of  the  hearts  of  freemen.  In  that  country  the  bare  issuing  of 
the  commission  is  itself  equivalent  to  an  execution. 

The  debtor  is  at  once  deprived  of  the  possession  of  all  his 
property,  and  it  is  vested  in  the  commissioners.  Although  he 
may  declare  that  he  has  never  been  guilty  of  an  act  of  bankruptcy, 
and  petition  for  a  trial,  he  petitions  in  vain.  The  iron  hand  of 
the  law  is  upon  him,  and  no  innocence  can  elude  its  grasp.  In 
that  country  the  law  declares  that  "  caveats  against  commissions 
are  not  allowed,  for  they  give  too  much  time  to  a  fraudulent 
debtor."  The  proceedings  under  it  resemble  those  of  the  judges 
in  the  infernal  regions,  who  first  condemn  and  afterwards  hear. 
They  first  deprive  a  man  of  all  his  property  by  virtue  of  the 
commission,  and  after  the  evil  has  been  done,  allow  him  to  apply 
to  the  chancellor  to  have  it  superseded. 

From  the  nature  of  those  governments  on  the  continent  of 
Europe,  under  whose  dominion  bankrupt  laws  prevail,  and  from 
the  peculiar  character  of  those  laws,  and  of  the  commercial  tri- 
bunals by  whom  they  are  administered,  the  same  evils  do  not 
exist.  I  will  not  exhaust  the  patience  of  the  House  by  detailing 
their  different  provisions. 


36  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

It  may  be  said  that,  as  the  bill  provides  that  the  petitioning 
creditor,  before  the  commission  can  issue,  shall  give  bond  to  be 
taken  by  the  circuit  or  district  judge,  in  such  penalty  and  with  such 
surety  as  he  may  direct,  conditioned  that  the  obligor  shall  prove 
the  debtor  to  be  a  bankrupt,  he  will  be  enabled  to  recover  damages 
to  the  extent  of  any  injury  which  he  may  sustain  in  case  the  con- 
dition of  the  bond  should  be  violated. 

This  remedy,  from  its  nature,  could  be  no  compensation  for 
the  injury  sustained.  To  inform  a  man,  after  he  had  been 
arrested  in  the  pursuit  of  his  business  by  a  commission  of  bank- 
ruptcy, after  his  prospects  in  life  had  been  blasted,  after  his  credit 
had  been  destroyed,  and  after  he  had  been  pursued  for  years  in  a 
course  of  litigation  which  had  terminated  in  his  favor,  that  he 
might  then  enter  upon  another  law-suit,  and  bring  his  action 
upon  the  bond,  would  be  laughing  at  his  calamity.  This  would 
present  no  prospect  of  indemnity,  even  if  the  obligors  should  be 
solvent;  but  from  the  ignorance  of  the  judges,  so  far  removed 
from  the  people,  as  those  of  the  United  States  necessarily  are, 
respecting  the  solvency  of  the  sureties;  and  from  the  lapse  of 
time  which  must  transpire  before  any  suit  could  be  sustained  upon 
the  bond,  it  would  in  most  instances  be  of  little  or  no  value. 

These,  then,  would  be  the  effects  of  the  bill  on  the  persons 
within  its  adverse  operation. 

Let  us  next  inquire  what  would  be  the  moral  and  practical 
effects  of  this  bill,  with  the  amendment  just  adopted  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Kentucky.  Should  it  pass  in  its  present  shape,  I 
shudder  at  the  consequences.  How  will  it  affect  the  great  agri- 
cultural interest  of  the  country?  I  have  the  honor,  in  part,  to 
represent  a  district  chiefly  composed  of  farmers.  They  are 
honest,  they  are  industrious,  and  they  esteem  their  contracts  to 
be  sacred  and  inviolable.  The  word  of  most  of  them,  could  their 
existence  be  perpetuated,  binds  them  as  forcibly  as  their  bond. 
Have  they,  or  have  any  other  agriculturists  over  the  whole  range 
of  this  extensive  Union,  asked  you  to  pass  a  bankrupt  law  in  their 
favor?  Have  they  ever  petitioned  you  to  discharge  them  from 
the  obligation  of  their  contracts,  which  they  feel  themselves  as 
much  bound  in  conscience  as  in  law  to  perform?  It  is  certain 
that  many  honest  and  respectable  men  of  that  valuable  class  of 
society  have  been  unfortunate,  and  I  pity  them  from  my  inmost 
soul;  but  I  beseech  you,  spare  them  from  a  law  for  which  they 
have  never  asked,  and  which  would  tempt  them  to  add  guilt  to 
misfortune. 


1822]  THE  BANKRUPTCY  BILL  37 

What  then  would  be  the  necessary  operation  of  such  a  law, 
when  brought  home  to  them  and  to  every  other  member  of 
society?  Once  declare  that  contracts  shall  be  no  longer  sacred; 
that  any  debtor,  whether  he  has  been  a  trader  or  not,  by  complying 
with  the  provisions  of  the  law,  may  have  an  election  held  by  his 
creditors,  and  if  two-thirds  of  them  in  number  and  value  consent, 
may  be  relieved  from  all  his  debts  against  the  will  of  the  remain- 
der ;  and  you  make  a  direct  attack  on  the  very  first  principles  of 
moral  honesty,  by  which  the  great  mass  of  the  people  have  been 
hitherto  directed.  Let  a  bankrupt  be  presented  to  the  view  of 
society,  who  has  become  wealthy  since  his  discharge,  and  who, 
after  having  ruined  a  number  of  his  creditors,  shields  himself 
from  the  payment  of  his  honest  debts  by  his  certificate,  and  what 
effects  would  such  a  spectacle  be  calculated  to  produce?  Exam- 
ples of  this  nature  must  at  length  demoralize  any  people.  The 
contagion  introduced  by  the  laws  of  the  country,  would,  for  that 
very  reason,  spread  like  a  pestilence,  until  honesty,  honor,  and 
faith  will  at  length  be  swept  from  the  intercourse  of  society. 
Leave  the  agricultural  interest  pure  and  uncorrupted,  and  they 
will  forever  form  the  basis  on  which  the  Constitution  and  liberties 
of  your  country  may  safely  repose.  Do  not,  I  beseech  you,  teach 
them  to  think  lightly  of  the  solemn  obligation  of  contracts.  No 
government  on  earth,  however  corrupt,  has  ever  enacted  a  bank- 
rupt law  for  farmers ;  it  would  be  a  perfect  monster  in  this  coun- 
try, where  our  institutions  depend  altogether  upon  the  virtue  of 
the  people.  We  have  no  constitutional  power  to  pass  the  amend- 
ment proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky ;  and  if  we  had 
we  never  should  do  so,  because  such  a  provision  would  spread  a 
moral  taint  through  society  which  would  corrupt  it  to  its  very  core. 

There  is  another  point  of  view  in  which  this  bill,  in  its  prac- 
tical effects,  would  be  intolerable.  The  jurisdiction  of  federal 
courts  over  citizens  of  the  United  States  is  now  chiefly  confined 
to  controversies  existing  between  the  citizens  of  different  States. 
This  bill,  if  it  should  become  a  law,  will  amount  to  almost  a 
judicial  consolidation  of  the  Union.  The  litigation  which  will 
arise  out  of  it,  and  which,  by  its  provisions,  must  be  exclusively 
determined  by  the  federal  courts,  will  embrace  a  large  portion 
of  the  citizens  of  every  State,  either  as  parties  or  witnesses. 

The  numerous  acts  of  bankruptcy  described  in  the  bill,  many 
of  which  depend  altogether  upon  the  intention  of  the  party 
charged  with  having  committed  them,  would  form  the  first  ample 
source  of  exclusive  federal  jurisdiction. 


38  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

By  the  fifty-sixth  section  it  is  provided  that  any  creditor  of 
a  bankrupt,  appearing  before  the  commissioners,  may,  at  his  elec- 
tion, have  the  validity  of  his  claim  determined  in  the  circuit  court 
of  the  district  in  which  the  bankrupt  resides.  The  same  privilege 
is  extended  to  the  assignees  objecting  to  the  validity  of  any  claim 
upon  the  bankrupt,  presented  before  the  commissioners;  in  this 
manner  every  lawsuit  which  could  arise  in  the  settlement  of  a 
bankrupt's  estate,  respecting  the  demands  of  any  of  his  creditors, 
would  be  drawn  into  the  circuit  court  for  decision.  This  would 
be  the  case  whether  he  became  a  bankrupt  voluntarily  or  by  com- 
pulsion, and  without  any  regard  either  to  his  occupation  or  place 
of  residence,  or  that  of  his  creditors.  The  whole  structure  of 
the  national  judiciary  would  thus  be  changed.  It  would  then 
possess  jurisdiction,  not  only  over  controversies  arising  between 
citizens  of  different  States,  but  over  an  immense  number  of  those 
existing  between  citizens  of  the  same  State. 

It  would  be  tedious  to  enumerate,  and  perhaps  impossible  to 
foresee,  all  the  controversies  which,  under  the  provisions  of  this 
bill,  must  exclusively  be  determined  by  the  federal  courts.  The 
sixty-third  section  contains  a  sweeping  clause  upon  this  subject. 
It  provides  "  that,  except  in  the  cases  which  are  in  this  act  other- 
wise specially  provided  for,  if  any  bankrupt,  or  any  assignee  or 
assignees,  creditor  or  creditors,  or  any  other  person,  shall  con- 
ceive himself,  herself,  or  themselves,  aggrieved  by  an  examination, 
order,  decision,  denial,  or  other  proceeding  of  the  Commissioners, 
under  any  commission,  or  any  act,  proceeding,  refusal,  neglect, 
or  omission  of  the  bankrupt,  or  any  assignee  or  assignees,  or  credi- 
tor or  creditors,  under,  or  by  virtue  of  this  act,"  such  person  may 
petition  the  circuit  court,  for  the  district  where  the  commission 
issued,  or  either  of  its  judges,  for  relief.  The  court,  or  the 
judge,  is  then  bound  to  take  cognizance  of  the  complaint,  and,  at 
the  election  of  either  party,  direct  any  facts  in  controversy  to  be 
tried  by  a  jury. 

In  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  there  are  but  two  district  courts 
of  the  United  States,  the  one  located  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia, 
the  other  in  the  city  of  Pittsburg.  The  distance  between  these 
two  places  is  three  hundred  miles.  The  inconvenience  and  ex- 
pense to  the  people,  from  every  section  of  the  State  of  attending 
those  two  courts,  as  parties,  and  as  witnesses,  would  be  an  intol- 
erable grievance.  Under  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  however, 
such  attendance  must  necessarily  be  a  matter  of  daily  occurrence. 
The  people  are  already  sufficiently  harassed,  by  being  obliged  to  be 


1822]  THE  BANKRUPTCY  BILL  39 

present  at  the  courts  within  their  own  counties;  but,  if  you 
compel  them  to  travel  to  the  federal  courts,  from  one  extremity 
of  a  large  State  to  the  other,  it  would  be  an  evil  scarcely  to  be 
endured.  The  same  inconveniences  will  still  exist  in  every  other 
State  in  the  Union,  but  they  will  be  felt  in  a  greater  degree  by 
the  people  of  the  larger  States.  This  is  another  radical  objection 
against  the  passage  of  a  bankrupt  bill  by  Congress.  It  is  one 
which  cannot  be  removed,  because  it  results  from  the  organization 
of  the  federal  courts  under  the  Constitution,  and  the  allotment 
of  judicial  power  between  them  and  the  courts  of  the  several 
States.  It  demonstrates,  however,  that  the  power  to  pass  bank- 
rupt laws  could  be  exercised  by  the  States  much  more  conveniently 
for  the  people,  than  by  the  General  Government. 

Another  serious  objection  to  the  passage  of  the  bill  is  its 
manifest  tendency  to  increase  the  perpetration  of  fraud.  It  is 
true  it  has  been  strenuously  maintained  by  its  friends,  that  it  will, 
in  a  great  degree,  repress  that  evil.  Has  the  experience  of  Eng- 
land justified  them  in  making  this  prediction  ?  Does  not  the  testi- 
mony which  has  been  taken  before  the  committee  of  the  House 
of  Commons  prove  clearly  the  contrary  ?  Indeed  so  pressed  down 
with  its  weight  was  my  honorable  colleague  (Mr.  Sergeant)  that 
he  was  obliged  to  attribute  the  innumerable  frauds  which  had 
been  committed  under  the  bankrupt  law  of  that  country,  not  to 
the  operation  of  the  law  itself,  but  to  the  general  corruption  that 
prevailed  among  the  people.  This  bill,  should  it  become  a  law, 
must  be  productive  of  innumerable  frauds,  unless  it  will  have  the 
power  of  changing  the  nature  of  man,  and  rendering  him  the  less 
criminal  because  he  is  the  more  tempted.  He  who  created  man, 
and  therefore  best  knew  his  heart,  directed  him  to  pray  that  he 
might  not  be  led  into  temptation.  This  bill  informs  the  debtor 
that,  if  he  will  conform  to  its  provisions,  he  shall  obtain  a  certifi- 
cate which  will  discharge  him  from  all  his  debts.  The  State  in- 
solvent laws  declare  to  him  that,  when  he  has  given  up  all  his 
property  for  the  use  of  his  creditors,  he  has  done  no  more  than 
his  duty,  and  that  his  future  acquisitions  shall  be  answerable 
until  his  debts  are  paid.  If  a  debtor  can  pass  the  ordeal  of  this 
bankrupt  law,  and  obtain  his  certificate,  he  may  then  in  security 
enjoy  that  property  which  successful  fraud  has  enabled  him  to 
conceal.  Under  the  State  insolvent  laws,  however,  he  must  know 
that  the  moment  his  concealed  property  is  brought  to  light,  it  is 
liable  to  be  seized  by  his  creditors.  Whilst,  therefore,  a  bank- 
rupt law  holds  out  every  temptation  to  make  the  debtor  dishonest, 


40  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

an  insolvent  law  presents  him  no  such  inducement.  Indeed,  his 
true  policy  is  directly  the  reverse.  Upon  his  good  and  fair  con- 
duct, and  the  consequent  favorable  regard  of  his  creditors,  depend 
his  hopes  of  a  discharge. 

It  is  true,  that  by  this  bill  a  bankrupt  cannot  obtain  a  dis- 
charge from  all  his  debts,  unless  by  the  consent  of  two-thirds 
of  his  creditors  in  number  and  value.  In  theory  this  would 
appear  to  present  a  considerable  difficulty  in  the  way  of  obtaining 
a  certificate.  In  practice,  under  the  English  bankrupt  laws,  it 
has  been  found  more  nominal  than  real.  Indeed,  but  few  in- 
stances have,  I  believe,  occurred  in  the  history  of  their  bankrupt 
laws,  in  which  consent  has  not  been  obtained.  In  this  country, 
under  our  judiciary  system,  it  would,  perhaps,  be  still  easier  for 
the  bankrupt  to  escape  from  his  debts.  He  himself,  if  he  be 
fraudulently  disposed,  can,  by  his  own  act,  create  as  many  credi- 
tors as  he  chooses.  If  the  assignees  or  the  other  creditors  think 
proper  to  dispute  the  claims  of  those  believed  to  be  fraudulent, 
they  may  insist  upon  having  a  trial  by  jury  before  the  circuit  court. 
Where  the  bankrupt  has  little  or  no  property  to  divide,  as  would 
be  the  case  in  most  instances,  neither  his  assignees  nor  honest 
creditors  would  incur  the  expense  and  trouble  of  carrying  on 
a  lawsuit,  perhaps  a  hundred  miles  from  home,  to  disprove  any 
debt  presented  before  the  commissioners.  Even  should  they 
think  proper  to  do  so,  it  would  be  difficult  to  accomplish  it,  if 
the  fraud  had  been  conducted  with  any  art ;  because,  in  the  law, 
fraud  is  never  to  be  presumed,  but  must  be  clearly  proved. 

The  evils  which  would  flow  from  the  retrospective  opera- 
tion of  this  bill  I  shall  not  touch;  they  have  already  been  ably 
and  eloquently  descanted  upon  by  others. 

I  shall  now  come  to  my  concluding  argument  against  the 
passage  of  this  bill.  It  would  tend  again  to  arouse  the  spirit 
of  wild  and  extravagant  speculation,  which  has  spread  distress  far 
and  wide  over  the  land.  It  will  tend  again  to  produce  those  very 
evils  for  which  its  friends  say  it  is  intended  to  provide  a  remedy. 
What  has  been  the  history  of  this  country?  Upon  this  subject,  let 
us  not  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the  dictates  of  experience.  It  is  the  best 
teacher  of  political  wisdom. 

Under  our  glorious  Constitution,  the  human  mind  is  unre- 
strained in  the  pursuit  of  happiness,  the  calm  of  despotism  does 
not  rest  upon  us.  Neither  the  institutions  of  the  country,  nor 
the  habits  of  society,  have  established  any  castes  within  the  limits 
of  which  man  shall  be  confined.     The  human  intellect  walks 


1822]  THE  BANKRUPTCY  BILL  41 

abroad  in  its  majesty.  This  admirable  system  of  government, 
which  incorporates  the  rights  of  man  into  the  Constitution  of  the 
country,  develops  all  the  latent  resources  of  the  intellect,  and 
brings  them  into  active  energy.  The  road  to  wealth  and  to  honor 
is  not  closed  against  the  humblest  citizen — and  Heaven  forbid  that 
it  ever  should  be! 

It  is,  however,  the  destiny  of  man  to  learn  that  evil  often 
treads  closely  upon  the  footsteps  of  good.  The  very  liberty  which 
we  enjoy,  unless  we  are  restrained  by  the  dictates  of  morality 
and  of  prudence,  has  a  tendency  to  make  us  discontented  with 
our  condition.  It  often  produces  a  restless  temper,  and  a  disposi- 
tion to  be  perpetually  changing  our  pursuits,  for  the  purpose  of 
becoming  more  wealthy  or  more  distinguished.  The  frame  of 
mind  produced  by  freedom,  if  kept  within  proper  bounds,  is  a 
source  of  the  greatest  advantages  to  individuals  and  to  society: 
if  unrestrained,  and  suffered  to  run  wild,  it  leads  to  every  species 
of  extravagance  and  folly. 

A  few  merchants,  both  in  the  cities  and  in  the  country,  have 
amassed  splendid  and  princely  fortunes.  These  have  glittered  in 
the  fancy  of  the  thoughtless  and  unsuspecting  countryman,  and 
have  roused  his  ambition  or  his  avarice.  He  never  calculated 
that  it  requires  a  union  of  considerable  parts  with  great  experience 
to  make  an  accomplished  merchant;  and  that,  with  all  these 
advantages,  but  few  comparatively  are  successful.  His  son  is 
taught  book-keeping  at  a  country  school,  and  then  he  abandons 
the  pursuit  of  his  fathers.  He  leaves  the  business  of  agriculture, 
which  is  the  most  peaceful,  the  most  happy,  the  most  independent, 
and,  I  might  add,  the  most  respectable,  in  society,  to  become  a 
merchant.  He  spurns  the  idea  of  treading  in  the  path  of  his 
ancestors,  and  acquiring  his  living  by  the  sweat  of  his  brow. 
Wealth  and  distinction  have  become  his  idols,  and  have  turned 
his  brain.  Is  not  this  the  history  of  thousands  in  our  country 
within  the  last  twenty  years  ?  It  was  not  difficult  to  predict  what 
would  be  the  melancholy  catastrophe.  Bankruptcy  and  ruin  have 
fallen  upon  the  thoughtless  adventurers. 

Happy  would  it  have  been  for  the  country  had  this  spirit  of 
speculation  confined  itself  to  the  farmer  who  turned  merchant. 
We  have  witnessed  it  spreading  over  every  class  of  the  com- 
munity. We  have,  in  innumerable  instances,  seen  the  plain, 
sober,  industrious,  and  inexperienced  farmer,  converted  into  a 
speculator  in  land  and  in  stocks.  We  have  lived  in  a  time  when 
the  foundations  of  society  appeared  to  be  shaken,  and  when 


42  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

the  love  of  gain  seemed  to  swallow  up  every  other  passion  of  the 
heart.  This  disposition  gave  birth  to  the  hundreds  and  thou- 
sands of  banks,  which  have  spread  themselves  over  the  country. 
Their  reaction  upon  the  people  doubled  the  force  of  the  original 
cause  which  produced  them.  They  deluged  the  country  with 
bank  paper.  The  price  of  land  rose  far  beyond  its  real  value; 
it  commanded  from  $200  to  $400  per  acre  in  many  parts  of  the 
district  which  I  have  the  honor,  in  part,  to  represent ;  and  I  know 
one  instance  in  which  a  man  agreed  to  give  $1,500  per  acre  for  a 
tract  of  land,  which  he  afterwards  laid  out  in  town  lots.  He  sold 
the  lots  at  so  large  a  profit,  that  he  would  have  accumulated  an 
independent  fortune  by  the  speculation,  had  not  the  times 
changed  and  the  lot-holders  in  consequence  been  unable  to  pay 
the  purchase  money. 

This  universal  delusion  has  vanished ;  the  enchantment  is  at 
an  end ;  the  people  have  been  restored  to  their  sober  senses.  In 
the  change,  which  was  rapid,  many  honest  and  respectable  citizens 
have  been  ruined.  Among  many,  misery  and  want  have  usurped 
the  abodes  of  happiness  and  plenty.  I  most  sincerely  deplore  their 
situation;  but,  as  legislators,  we  should  also  have  some  compas- 
sion upon  the  community.  Experience  has  taught  us  a  lesson 
which,  I  trust,  we  shall  never  forget — that  a  wild  and  extravagant 
spirit  of  speculation  is  one  of  the  greatest  curses  that  can  pervade 
our  country.  Do  you  wish  again  to  rouse  it?  Do  you  wish 
again  to  witness  the  desolation  which  it  has  spread  over  the  land, 
and  which  we  are  now  slowly  repairing?  Then  pass  this  bank- 
rupt bill !  Inform  the  farmer,  who  is  now  contented  and  happy, 
and  whom  experience  has  taught  the  danger  of  entering  into  trade, 
that  he  may  become  a  merchant  or  a  land  jobber;  that  he  may 
proceed  to  any  excess  he  thinks  proper;  that  he  need  confine  the 
extravagance  of  his  speculations  within  no  other  limit  but  the 
extent  of  his  credit;  that  if,  at  last,  he  should  be  successful,  un- 
bounded wealth  will  be  his  portion ;  if  not,  the  law  will  discharge 
him  from  all  his  debts,  and  enable  him  to  begin  a  new  career. 
Hold  out  a  lure  to  all  the  industrious  classes  in  society  to  abandon 
their  useful  and  honorable  pursuits,  and  enter  into  speculation 
of  some  kind  or  other,  by  proclaiming  it  as  the  law  that,  if  they 
should  prove  unsuccessful,  their  debts  shall  be  cancelled,  and  they 
shall  be  restored  to  their  former  situation.  Such  a  law  would 
present  the  strongest  temptations  to  every  man  in  society  to  be- 
come indolent  and  extravagant,  because  every  man  in  society  is 
embraced  by  its  provisions.     In  this  respect  it  is  as  novel  as  it  is 


1822]  THE  EXCHANGE  OF  STOCKS  43 

dangerous.  Rest  assured,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  our  population 
require  the  curb  more  than  the  rein.  If  you  hold  out  such  encour- 
agement to  unbounded  speculation  as  this  bill  presents,  we  shall, 
before  many  years,  see  all  the  occurrences  again  presented  before 
us  which  have  involved  the  country  in  unexampled  distress. 

The  time  may  come,  in  ages  hence,  when  a  bankrupt  law  may 
become  necessary  for  the  encouragement  of  commerce.  History 
has  instructed  us  that  nations,  like  men,  rise,  and  flourish,  and 
decay.  At  present  our  population  possesses  all  the  vigor  and 
enterprise  of  youth.  The  stimulus  of  such  a  bill  would  drive  us 
on  to  madness.  It  would  be  putting  into  the  hands  of  Phaeton 
the  reins  of  the  chariot  of  the  sun.  The  day  will  come,  but  I 
trust  it  is  now  far  distant,  when  old  age  shall  fall  upon  us  as  a 
nation,  when  wealth  shall  beget  luxury  and  corruption,  and  when 
we  shall  be  enfeebled  in  all  our  exertions.  Then  it  may  be  neces- 
sary to  hold  out  extraordinary  allurements  to  commercial  enter- 
prise. When  that  day  shall  arrive;  when  our  country  shall  be 
sinking  into  decline;  when  her  energies  shall  be  paralysed;  and 
when,  perhaps,  a  new  Republic,  vigorous  as  ours  is  at  present, 
may  be  her  competitor  in  commerce,  then,  and  not  till  then, 
will  it  be  necessary  that  Congress  should  exercise  the  power  vested 
in  them  by  the  Constitution,  and  pass  uniform  laws  on  the  subject 
of  bankruptcies. 


REMARKS,  MARCH  21,  1822, 

ON  THE  EXCHANGE  OF  STOCKS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  express  his 
decided  opinion  in  favor  of  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from 

1  Annals  of  Congress,  17  Cong.  1  Sess.  1821-1822,  II.  1344-1345. 

Mr.  Cambreleng's  amendment,  which  had  been  voted  down  in  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  proposed  to  authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  issue 
not  exceeding  $26,000,000  of  5  per  cent,  stock  in  exchange  for  6  per  cent, 
and  7  per  cent,  stocks  previously  issued.  The  holders  of  the  6  per  cent, 
and  7  per  cent,  stocks  were  to  be  allowed  to  subscribe  for  the  5  per  cent, 
stock  between  May  1  and  August  1,  1822,  specifying  the  terms  on  which 
they  would  make  the  exchange ;  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  to 
be  authorized  to  accept  such  offers  as  he  might  deem  advantageous  to  the 
United  States,  the  exchange  to  be  effected  by  a  surrender  of  the  old  certifi- 
cates and  the  payment  into  the  Treasury  of  the  premium,  if  any,  offered  in 
consideration  of  the  exchange.  The  amendment  was  carried  in  the  House 
by  a  vote  of  109  to  38. 


44  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

New  York,  (Mr.  Cambreleng.)  However  unpromising  might 
be  its  prospect  of  success,  he  was  so  firmly  convinced  it  ought 
to  succeed,  he  would  briefly  state  his  reasons  for  his  opinion. 
The  principle  of  the  bill,  said  Mr.  B.,  is  unexceptionable.  If  we 
could  pay  the  debt,  when  it  shall  become  due,  that  would  be  the 
most  politic  course.  This  is  admitted  to  be  impossible,  even  by 
those  who  are  the  most  sanguine  in  their  calculations  respecting 
the  revenue.  After  the  $26,000,000  shall  have  been  exchanged 
under  the  provision  of  this  bill,  the  remainder  of  the  war  loans 
will  be  more  than  we  will  be  able  to  pay  as  they  become  due.  It 
therefore  becomes  a  wise  and  prudent  people  to  provide,  in  time, 
the  means  of  keeping  up  the  credit  of  the  Government.  We  can 
now  do  this,  and  save,  at  the  very  least,  an  annual  expenditure 
of  interest  of  $260,000  from  the  time  when  the  bill  shall  go  into 
operation.  The  question,  however,  now  is,  between  the  first 
section  of  the  present  bill  and  the  proposed  amendment.  Mr. 
B.  said  he  was  in  favor  of  the  latter.  The  universal  peace  which 
followed  the  general  war  throughout  Europe,  had  opened  the 
avenues  of  trade  to  all  nations.  By  that  means  much  of  the 
capital  of  our  merchants  had  been  driven  from  commerce,  and 
was  vested  in  the  public  funds.  The  price  of  money  became 
cheap,  because  we  had  much  more  than  was  demanded  to  carry 
on  our  commerce.  Trade  has,  however,  been  lately  reviving,  and 
the  demand  for  money  is  becoming  greater.  Should  we  realize 
all  the  benefits  from  declaring  the  South  American  provinces  inde- 
pendent, which  we  anticipate,  and  should  other  events  transpire, 
which  are  at  least  probable,  new  channels  of  trade  will  be  opened 
to  our  commercial  enterprise.  Delay  upon  this  subject  may  there- 
fore be  dangerous.  We  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  the 
exchange  could  now  be  effected  upon  very  advantageous  terms — 
what  will  be  the  state  of  the  money  market  by  October  next,  it 
is  impossible  to  foresee.  The  amendment  contemplates  that 
proposals  shall  be  received  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  from 
and  after  the  first  of  May  next;  the  original  section,  not  until 
October.  In  this  respect,  Mr.  B.  thought  the  amendment  prefer- 
able to  the  bill  as  it  then  stood.  The  chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means  had  thought  the  bill  should  not  go  into  opera- 
tion until  the  1st  of  October  next,  that  the  foreign  holders  of  stock 
might  have  an  opportunity  of  taking  advantage  of  its  provisions. 
Mr.  B.  said,  he  could  not  perceive  upon  what  principle  we  should 
endanger  the  success  of  the  bill,  by  waiting  until  they  might  have 
an  opportunity  of  subscribing.     He  also  preferred  the  amendment 


1822]  THE  EXCHANGE  OF  STOCKS  45 

for  another  reason.  The  five  per  cent,  stock  of  the  Government 
was  now  selling  in  the  market  at  an  advance  higher,  by  between 
three  and  four  per  cent.,  than  the  six  per  cent,  stocks  redeemable 
in  1825  and  1826.  The  bill,  as  it  at  present  stands,  will  give  the 
benefit  of  this  premium  to  the  stockholders  of  the  Government, 
at  the  public  expense.  Why  should  we  extend  these  advantages 
to  any  description  of  men  in  the  community?  We  should  be 
just;  it  cannot  be  expected  we  will  be  generous  to  the  public  credi- 
tors; because,  by  acting  in  this  manner,  we  injure  our  con- 
stituents. A  premium  of  three  per  cent,  on  the  $26,000,000, 
proposed  to  be  exchanged  by  this  bill,  would  amount  to  $780,000. 
I  hope  the  House  are  not  prepared  to  give  this  large  sum,  without 
any  equivalent,  to  the  holders  of  the  public  stock.  The  amend- 
ment can  do  no  harm.  The  Secretary  has  no  power  to  make 
a  worse  bargain,  under  its  authority,  than  that  of  the  original 
bill;  he  may,  however,  and  in  all  human  probability  will,  make 
one  that  is  much  better.  This  bill,  as  it  stands  at  present,  presents 
a  singular  incongruity.  The  six  per  cent,  stock,  due  in  1824 
and  in  1825,  is  placed  on  the  same  footing,  and  yet  the  one  is 
clearly  more  valuable  than  the  other.  They  must  both  be  ex- 
changed for  five  per  cent,  stock  on  the  same  terms,  and  it  is  out  of 
the  power  of  the  Secretary  to  make  a  different  bargain  in  the 
one  case  from  the  other.  Mr.  B.  said  he  believed,  if  the  amend- 
ment were  adopted,  it  would  be  a  clear  saving  to  the  country  of 
between  half  a  million  and  a  million  dollars;  and,  under  that 
impression,  he  would  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  that  his  vote 
might  be  recorded  in  the  affirmative. 


REMARKS,  MARCH  30,  1822, 

ON  THE  EXCHANGE  OF  STOCKS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  observed,  that,  although  the  bill  before  the 
House,  even  as  it  had  been  amended,  did  not  please  him  in  all 
its  details,  yet,  imperfect  as  it  was  in  his  estimation,  he  deemed  it 
in  principle  to  be  a  measure  so  advantageous  to  the  country  that 
it  should  receive  his  decided  support.  The  gentleman  from  Ken- 
tucky (Mr.  Johnson)  has  complained  that  the  friends  of  retrench- 
ment, of  whom  he  professed  to  be  one  of  the  most  zealous,  were 
denounced  as  radicals  and  enemies  of  the  present  Administration. 


1  Annals  of  Congress,  17  Cong.  1  Sess.  1821-1822,  II.  1429-1432. 


46  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

Mr.  B.  was  utterly  at  a  loss  to  know  what  application  such 
remarks  had  to  the  subject  under  discussion.  If  they  had  any, 
for  one  he  could  observe,  that  denunciations  of  this  kind  would 
have  no  terrors  for  him.  He  neither  desired  nor  expected  any 
favor  from  the  Administration;  and  he  trusted  that,  whilst  he 
held  the  high  and  honorable  station  of  a  Representative  of  the 
people,  he  should  neither  wish  nor  ask  for  any  other  distinction. 
He  was,  therefore,  alike  indifferent  whether  he  was  called  a 
radical  or  an  ultra. 

Mr.  B.  said,  that  the  present  amount  of  the  national  debt 
might  be  stated,  for  the  sake  of  even  numbers,  at  $93,000,000. 
$63,000,000  of  this  sum  is  the  balance  of  the  war  loans  yet  re- 
maining unpaid,  and  bearing  an  interest  of  six  and  seven  per  cent, 
per  annum.  This  balance  will  be  redeemable  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
Government,  in  the  years  1825,  1826,  1827,  and  1828.  The 
measure  proposed  by  the  present  bill  is  an  exchange  of  $26,000,- 

000  of  this  stock,  upon  which  the  Government  now  pays  an  inter- 
est of  six  and  seven  per  cent,  for  stock  to  that  amount,  bearing 
an  interest  of  five  per  cent,  and  not  redeemable  until  1830,  1831, 
1832,  and  1833.  This  exchange,  in  all  human  probability,  can 
now  be  effected.  The  only  question,  therefore,  to  be  decided, 
is  the  policy  of  the  measure. 

It  is  said  by  its  enemies  that  this  bill  should  not  pass,  because 
it  will  deprive  the  Government  of  the  power  of  redeeming 
$26,000,000  of  the  public  debt,  during  the  years  in  which  it  will 
become  due.  If  the  slightest  prospect  existed  that  we  should  be 
able  to  pay  the  $63,000,000,  during  those  years,  then,  said  Mr.  B., 

1  admit  this  would  be  a  conclusive  objection  to  the  bill.  Un- 
questionably we  should  not  deprive  ourselves  of  the  opportunity 
of  discharging  our  debts,  whenever  we  shall  have  the  ability. 
But  does  any  gentleman,  however  sanguine  he  may  be  in  his  cal- 
culations, really  believe  that  our  revenue,  during  the  years  1825, 
1826,  1827,  and  1828,  will  be  sufficient  to  defray  the  current 
expenses  of  the  Government,  to  pay  the  interest  of  the  whole  of 
the  national  debt,  and  sink  $63,000,000  of  the  principal?  Dur- 
ing each  of  the  two  last  years  our  debt  has  been  increased  upwards 
of  $2,000,000 ;  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  his  annual 
report,  has  informed  us,  that  until  1825,  the  year  when  the  first 
of  the  war  loans  may  be  redeemed,  he  does  not  calculate  that  our 
ordinary  receipts  will  enable  him  to  do  more  than  meet  the 
ordinary  expenses  of  Government,  the  interest  of  the  national 
debt,  and  the  payment  to  the  public  creditors  of  the  small  balance 


1822]  THE  EXCHANGE  OF  STOCKS  47 

yet  unpaid  of  the  deferred  six  per  cent,  stock.  That  officer, 
we  are  informed  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means,  now  believes,  from  the  late  improvement  in  the  revenue, 
that  the  $2,000,000  of  six  per  cent,  stock  owned  by  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States,  may  also  be  discharged  during  the  inter- 
mediate years.  This,  however,  is  the  utmost  extent,  beyond 
which  our  most  sanguine  expectations  have  not  carried  us. 

If  you  should  delay  making  such  a  provision  as  that  con- 
templated by  this  bill  until  1825,  what  will  then  be  your  situation? 
During  that  and  the  three  subsequent  years,  you  will  either  have 
a  debt  of  $63,000,000  to  discharge,  or  you  will  be  compelled 
to  pay  for  it  an  interest  of  six  per  cent.  If  you  pay  the  amount, 
you  must  provide  the  means,  by  resorting  to  loans;  and  your 
necessities  will  then  compel  you  to  borrow  so  much  at  once,  that 
the  value  of  money  will  be  raised  in  the  market  and  you  will  not 
be  able  to  obtain  it  at  so  cheap  a  rate  as  it  can  now  be  procured. 
Is  it  not,  therefore,  infinitely  more  politic  to  make  the  contem- 
plated exchange  of  $26,000,000  at  the  present  time,  when  it 
can  be  done  upon  advantageous  terms,  than,  under  existing  cir- 
cumstances to  trust  to  the  future  ? 

Should  this  exchange  be  effected  to  its  full  extent  there  will 
still  remain  $37,000,000,  which  we  may  pay  in  1825,  1826,  1827, 
and  1828;  upwards  of  $9,000,000  each  year.  This  sum  so 
greatly  exceeds  that  portion  of  the  Sinking  Fund  applicable  to 
the  payment  of  the  principal  of  the  debt  during  those  years,  even 
should  it  be  in  operation  to  the  full  extent  at  present  contem- 
plated by  law,  that  we  shall  then  be  obliged  to  borrow  large 
sums  of  money.  This  bill  is  calculated  to  divide  the  pressure. 
Let  us  now  make  an  exchange  of  a  part  upon  good  terms ;  and 
by  doing  so  Ave  shall  secure  to  ourselves  infinitely  better  terms  for 
the  balance  in  1825,  1826,  1827,  and  1828,  than  we  could  other- 
wise expect. 

Mr.  B.  said,  he  believed  this  to  be  the  auspicious  moment 
for  making  the  exchange.  Trade  is  reviving  and  the  demand 
for  money  becoming  consequently  greater.  Should  we  realize 
the  commercial  advantages  which  we  expect  from  our  declaration, 
that  the  South  American  provinces  are  free  and  independent, 
new  avenues  will  be  opened  for  mercantile  enterprise,  and  for  the 
employment  of  that  capital  which  now  remains  idle.  The  interest 
of  money  must  rise  as  the  demand  for  it  increases.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  Spain  should,  in  violation  of  the  principles  of  justice  and 
of  the  laws  of  nations,  declare  war  against  us  for  recognizing 


48  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

the  independence  of  her  colonies,  or  even  threaten  it,  the  neces- 
sary result  must  be  a  depression  in  the  price  of  your  stocks.  The 
experience  of  every  country,  in  a  state  of  actual  or  probable  war, 
proves  the  truth  of  this  position.  This,  then,  appears  to  be  the 
favorable  time  which,  if  we  suffer  to  pass  away,  may  never  again 
return. 

The  immediate  effect  of  this  exchange  will  be  an  annual  sav- 
ing of  $260,000.  My  friend  from  Kentucky,  said  Mr.  B.,  who 
is  so  laudably  desirous  of  introducing  economy  in  the  expenditure 
of  public  money,  should  have  included  this  item  in  his  calculations. 

The  present  bill,  we  have  been  informed  by  the  chairman 
of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  is  a  financial  measure  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Now,  although  the  opinion  of 
that  officer,  even  in  matters  of  finance,  should  not  be  authority; 
yet,  from  his  character  and  official  station,  it  is  entitled  to  much 
weight.  When  there  is  doubt — when  the  judgment  is  nearly 
balanced,  it  should  at  least  turn  the  scale.  If  Congress  reject 
this  measure,  thus  recommended,  and  if  we  shall  be  compelled 
to  accept  much  worse  terms  in  1825  than  the  bill  proposes,  our 
constituents  would  have  a  just  right  to  complain  of  our  conduct. 

It  has  been  urged  that  the  provisions  of  this  bill  are  im- 
moral in  their  nature,  and  will  tend  to  introduce  a  system  of 
wagering  on  future  contingencies.  It  appears  to  me,  however, 
that  there  is  not  the  slightest  foundation  for  this  objection. 
Would  the  most  rigid  casuist  consider,  that  the  man  who  had 
borrowed  money  some  years  ago  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent,  per 
annum,  which  will  become  due  three  years  hence,  is  liable  to  an 
imputation  of  dishonesty  if  now,  when  money  is  worth  less  than 
five  per  cent.,  he  offers  to  his  creditor  to  extend  the  time  of 
payment  to  eight  years,  provided  he  will  accept  that  rate  of  inter- 
est from  the  date  of  the  arrangement.  This  is  precisely  the  pro- 
posal of  Government  as  contained  in  the  present  bill. 

Mr.  B.  concluded,  by  expressing  his  decided  opinion  that, 
in  whatever  view  this  bill  could  be  presented  it  would  be  beneficial 
to  the  country,  and,  therefore,  he  hoped  it  might  pass. 


1822]  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  49 


REMARKS,  APRIL  9, 1822, 

ON   A    PROPOSED    APPROPRIATION   FOR   THE    REPAIR    OF   THE 
CUMBERLAND    ROAD.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  should  make  no  apology  for  rising 
to  address  the  House  upon  the  present  occasion.  The  character 
of  Pennsylvania,  he  said,  had  been  attacked,  and  her  views  had 
been  misrepresented,  by  honorable  gentlemen  upon  this  floor; 
and  he  should  feel  himself  utterly  unworthy  of  the  trust  reposed 
in  him,  as  one  of  her  representatives,  if,  after  what  had  been 
said,  he  were  not  to  stand  forth  in  her  defence. 

As  it  often  happened,  said  Mr.  B.,  that  men  are  most  afflicted 
by  imaginary  diseases,  so  it  occurs  that  they  most  dread  imaginary 
dangers.  This  has  been  the  case  with  the  gentleman  from  Ten- 
nessee, (Mr.  Jones.)  He  has  been  grappling  with  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania,  as  though  she  stood  ready  to  hurl  the  mountain 
into  the  Cumberland  road,  described  by  the  gentleman  from 
Maryland,  (Mr.  Bayly,)  and  he  were  the  Atlas  who  could  sus- 
tain it  upon  his  shoulders,  and  thus  make  the  attempt  unavailing. 
This  fancy  of  the  gentleman  has  produced  an  excellent  speech. 
Indeed,  without  much  imagination  and  ardor  of  feeling,  there 
can  be  but  little  eloquence.  Let  me,  however,  assure  that  gentle- 
man and  this  House,  that  neither  Pennsylvania  nor  her  represen- 
tatives dream  of  the  destruction  of  the  Cumberland  road. 

The  gentleman  from  Tennessee,  (Mr.  Jones,)  and  the  gentle- 
man from  Kentucky,  (Mr.  Hardin,)  have  ingeniously  attempted 
to  connect  the  grant  of  this  appropriation  with  the  preservation 
or  destruction  of  this  road.  They  have  asked  us  if  we  will 
now  destroy  that  great  national  work — if  we  will  close  the  avenues 
which  keep  the  intercourse  open  between  the  East  and  the  West. 
I  answer  we  will  not.  We  all  admit  that  the  road  should  be 
preserved.  The  question  now  to  be  determined  by  this  House 
is  not  whether  the  road  shall  be  destroyed,  but  by  whom  shall 
it  be  repaired,  whether  by  the  United  States  or  by  the  people 
who  use,  and  for  whose  benefit  it  was  constructed. 

The  National  Government  have  made  the  road  at  an  expense 

x  Annals  of  Congress,  17  Cong.  1  Sess.  1821-1822,  II.  1503-1508. 

February  19,  1823,  Buchanan  offered  an  amendment  to  a  pending  bill, 
to  cede  to  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia  the  parts  of  the  road  lying 
within   their  limits  on  condition  that  they  keep  it  in  repair.     (Annals  of 
Congress,  17  Cong.  2  Sess.  1 822-1823,  1063.) 
4 


50  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

of  $1,000,000.  Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said  by  gen- 
tlemen about  the  existence  of  a  compact  for  that  purpose,  it  now 
appears  that  five-sixths  of  this  enormous  expenditure  has  been 
pure  bounty.  It  has  been  stated,  and  not  contradicted,  that  the 
two  per  cent,  upon  the  whole  amount  of  the  sales  of  lands  of 
Ohio,  which  was  the  sum  pledged  for  the  purpose  of  making  a 
road,  does  not  exceed  $300,000.  The  United  States  then,  in 
the  construction  of  the  Cumberland  road,  have  been  actuated 
by  the  most  liberal  policy  towards  the  people  of  the  West. 

What  has  been  the  principal  argument  urged  by  gentlemen, 
friendly  to  this  appropriation,  to  induce  us  to  keep  the  road  in 
repair?  In  my  opinion  it  is  one  of  the  most  wonderful  which 
has  ever  been  presented  to  this  House.  Say  they,  because  you 
have  made  the  road,  you  should,  therefore,  be  at  the  expense  of 
supporting  it.  Is  not  this  a  conclusion  directly  the  reverse  of 
one  which  would  naturally  flow  from  the  premises  ?  If  we  have 
been  so  generous  as  to  make  a  road  for  you,  ought  you  not,  at 
least,  to  keep  it  in  repair?  If  tolls  could  not  be  collected  upon  it 
sufficient  for  its  preservation,  there  would  be  some  force  in  the 
argument.  This,  however,  is  not  pretended.  Indeed  we  should 
be  almost  induced  to  believe,  from  the  representations  of  its 
friends,  if  we  did  not  know  to  the  contrary,  that  it  was  the  only 
road  which  connects  the  West  with  the  East. 

In  what  estimation  would  an  individual  be  held  who  had 
received  as  a  free  gift  a  valuable  farm,  if,  when,  in  the  lapse  of 
time,  it  needed  repairs,  he  should  demand  from  his  benefactor 
the  sum  which  they  might  cost,  and  assign  his  generosity  in  con- 
ferring the  original  bounty,  as  a  reason  why  he  was  bound  to 
satisfy  this  new  claim?  The  present  is  a  case  precisely  parallel 
with  the  one  now  before  the  House,  so  far  as  it  goes.  The 
gentleman  from  Kentucky,  (Mr.  Hardin,)  and  the  gentleman 
from  Tennessee,  (Mr.  Jones,)  have  gone  still  further,  and  have 
attributed,  not  only  to  my  colleagues  who  have  heretofore  ad- 
dressed you  on  this  subject,  but  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
generally,  a  selfish  and  illiberal  policy,  because  they  have  resisted 
this  unreasonable  demand.  With  what  justice  the  charge  has 
been  made  remains  for  this  House  to  determine. 

Gentlemen  have  instituted  comparisons  between  the  amount 
of  public  money  expended  for  the  benefit  of  -the  people  in  the 
East  and  in  the  West.  As  a  present  consolation  for  the  disparity 
in  this  respect,  which  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  (Mr.  Hardin,) 
supposes  to  exist  in  favor  of  the  East,  he  has  predicted  that  the 


1822]  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  51 

day  will  ere  long  arrive  when  the  weight  of  power  shall  be 
transferred  to  the  West.  It  is  because  my  feelings  are  all  friendly 
to  that  portion  of  our  Union  that  I  dislike  to  hear  such  sentiments 
from  sources  so  respectable.  Gentlemen,  without  intending  it, 
I  am  convinced,  have  been  thus  endeavoring  to  excite  jealousies 
between  people  whose  feelings  and  whose  common  interest  are 
both  precisely  the  same. 

With  what  justice  has  it  been  contended  by  gentlemen,  that 
the  money  expended  in  the  construction  of  a  navy,  has  been 
exclusively  for  the  benefit  of  the  eastern  section  of  the  Union? 
Although  it  is  now  generally  admitted  that  a  navy  is  the  best 
defence  for  all  parts  of  the  Union,  yet  it  is  peculiarly  the  bulwark 
of  the  country  west  of  the  Alleghany  mountains.  The  extent 
of  coast  upon  the  Atlantic  would  render  it  impracticable  for  any 
hostile  naval  force  altogether  to  prevent  us  from  sending  a  por- 
tion of  our  produce  to  market;  but  let  the  mouth  of  the  Missis- 
sippi be  blockaded  by  a  force  of  that  description,  superior  to  our 
own,  and  I  ask  what  will  become  of  all  the  surplus  agricultural 
productions  of  the  vast  and  fertile  valley  watered  by  that  river 
and  its  tributary  streams  ?  The  truth  is,  we  are  all  so  connected 
together  by  our  interest,  as  to  place  us  in  a  state  of  mutual  de- 
pendence upon  each  other,  and  to  make  that  which  is  for  the 
interest  of  any  one  member  of  the  federal  family  beneficial,  in 
most  instances,  to  all  the  rest.  We  never  can  be  divided  without 
first  being  guilty  of  political  suicide.  The  prosperity  of  all  the 
States  depends  as  much  upon  their  Union  as  the  human  life 
depends  upon  that  of  the  soul  and  the  body. 

The  State  of  Pennsylvania,  about  the  illiberality  of  whose 
views  on  this  subject  so  much  has  been  said,  never  has  acted 
towards  you  in  the  manner  those  interested  in  the  Cumberland 
road  have  done.  Had  you  advanced  us  the  money  to  construct  a 
road  which  would  have  been  advantageous  to  our  citizens  gener- 
ally, you  should  never  afterwards  have  been  asked  to  advance 
money  to  keep  it  in  repair.  We  should  have  considered  such  a 
request  both  ungrateful  and  unjust.  The  citizens  of  that  State, 
with  the  aid  which  she  liberally  bestowed,  have  already  completed 
eighteen  hundred  and  seven  miles  of  turnpike  road,  of  which 
about  twelve  hundred  and  fifty  are  of  solid  stone.  Laws  have 
been  passed  for  the  construction  of  seven  hundred  and  fourteen 
miles  more.  The  State  has  expended  upon  these  objects  $1,361,- 
542,  and  individuals  $4,158,347.  One  of  these  roads  runs  nearly 
parallel  with  the  Cumberland  road,  and  connects  the  city  of  Phila- 


52  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

delphia  with  that  of  Pittsburg.  The  gentleman  from  Tennessee, 
two  years  ago,  found  this  road  to  be  a  bad  one.  The  temper  of 
mind  with  which  people  travel  has  a  wonderful  effect  upon  their 
judgment  of  the  road,  and  I  fear  this  cause  has  operated,  in  no 
small  degree,  upon  the  mind  of  my  honorable  friend. 

It  is  expected  that  this  road,  as  well  as  all  others  of  the  same 
kind  in  Pennsylvania,  shall  not  only  support  itself,  but  yield 
some  small  dividend  upon  the  stock  subscribed  for  its  construction. 
I  ask,  then,  with  what  justice  towards  that  State  can  you  repair 
the  Cumberland  road  out  of  the  Treasury,  and  make  it  perfectly 
free  ?  Even  after  you  shall  have  placed  toll  gates  upon  it,  there 
will  be  no  fair  competition.  No  more  toll  will  be  collected  upon 
it  than  will  be  necessary  for  its  preservation,  whilst  our  road,  in 
addition  to  that  amount,  must  pay  an  interest  to  the  State,  and  to 
the  stockholders.  With  what  propriety,  then,  can  Pennsylvania 
be  censured  for  maintaining  the  principle  that  those  who  travel 
upon  the  Cumberland  road,  and  are  most  interested  in  its  preser- 
vation, should  keep  it  in  repair.  She  does  not  deserve,  at  your 
hands,  that  you  should  give  a  premium  out  of  the  public  treasury, 
for  the  purpose  of  diverting  travellers  away  from  her  road,  and 
inducing  them  to  use  another  which  is  in  no  respect  superior. 
It  will  not  be  denied  but  that,  in  times  of  trial,  she  has  both  fought 
and  paid  with  as  much  alacrity  as  any  other  State  in  the  Union. 

Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said,  I  believe,  as  firmly 
as  I  do  in  my  existence,  that  the  friends  of  this  road  might  with 
safety  retrocede  it  to  Pennsylvania.  It  would  not  be  delivering 
up  the  lamb  to  the  wolf,  to  use  the  expression  of  an  honorable 
gentleman.  Pennsylvania  is  now  no  more  governed  by  a  selfish 
policy,  than  when  she  ceded  to  the  United  States  the  soil  over 
which  the  road  passes.  She  then  understood  her  true  interest 
as  well  as  now.  There  certainly  has  been  nothing  in  her  conduct 
since,  which  could  induce  a  rational  belief  that  she  would  destroy 
this  great  public  work,  if  it  were  placed  in  her  power.  In  that 
case  she  would  do  nothing  more  than  impose  a  toll  upon  it,  suf- 
ficient to  create  a  fair  competition  between  it  and  her  own  road ; 
and  then  leave  the  public  to  decide  which  they  would  use.  We 
do  not,  however,  ask  for  a  retrocession ;  all  we  desire  is,  that  the 
road  may  hereafter  support  itself,  and  not  be  a  perpetual  drain 
upon  the  public  treasury. 

The  existence  of  this  road,  I  can  assure  gentlemen,  is  not  a 
subject  of  such  alarm  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  nor  to  her 
metropolis,  as  they  suppose.     Whilst  Philadelphia  shall  deserve 


1822]  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  53 

the  character  which  she  has  so  justly  acquired  for  commercial 
integrity,  she  will  always  find  customers  in  the  West,  no  matter 
over  what  road  they  may  travel.  Her  experience  has  already 
proved  the  truth  of  this  assertion.  It  is  devoutly  to  be  wished, 
both  for  the  sake  of  her  merchants  and  those  of  the  West,  that, 
hereafter,  the  latter  may  be  able  to  comply  with  their  contracts 
better  than  they  have  done  heretofore.  In  making  this  observa- 
tion, I  have  not  the  most  remote  intention  of  giving  offence, 
because  I  know  that  the  pecuniary  embarrassments  of  people  of 
the  West  arose  from  causes,  the  operation  of  which  they  did  not 
at  first  foresee,  and  could  not  afterwards  control. 

We  have  all,  then,  arrived  at  this  conclusion,  that  the  road 
shall  not  be  suffered  to  go  to  ruin.  Whatever  doubts  may  at 
present  be  entertained,  either  of  the  policy  of  its  original  con- 
struction or  location,  about  which  I  have  my  own  opinion,  we 
must  not  now  allow  it  to  be  destroyed.  Before  toll  can  with 
justice  be  demanded  from  travellers,  it  must  be  repaired.  The 
mountain,  which  it  is  said  has  slid  down  into  it,  must  be  removed. 
From  motives  of  generosity  to  the  people  of  the  West,  and  not 
of  justice,  I  am,  therefore,  free  to  acknowledge,  that  I  am  willing 
a  provision  shall  be  introduced  into  the  bill  for  the  collection 
of  tolls,  appropriating  to  the  road  this  unexpended  balance  of 
$9,194.25.  After,  however,  we  shall  have  given  them  that 
amount  and  our  blessing,  it  should  be  explicitly  understood,  that 
we  shall  never  again  hear  any  more  demands  for  money  from  that 
quarter  on  the  same  account. 

It  may  be  asked  why  I  am  unwilling  to  make  the  appropria- 
tion in  the  present  bill  ?  For  this,  I  will  briefly  state  my  reasons. 
The  first  is,  that  if  the  appropriation  were  once  made,  we  have 
good  reason  for  apprehending  we  should  not  again,  during  the 
present  session,  hear  anything  about  the  collection  of  toll.  It  is 
at  least  certain  that  the  friends  of  the  road  would  not  then  be 
very  anxious  for  the  consideration  of  the  bill  providing  for  that 
object.  We  know  that  one  of  the  gentlemen  from  Ohio,  (Mr. 
Campbell,)  who  spoke  upon  this  subject,  avowed  his  opinion 
that  the  General  Government  should  always  support  this  road  out 
of  the  public  treasury.  I  would,  therefore,  make  a  provision  for 
the  collection  of  toll,  and  the  appropriation  of  this  unexpended 
balance  as  inseparable  as  man  and  wife.  I  know  they  are  un- 
willing companions,  and  I  dread  that,  if  the  one  should  get  the 
start  of  the  other,  it  would  be  difficult  ever  to  unite  them. 

Another  reason  which  operates  forcibly  upon  my  mind  is, 


54  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1822 

that  this  donation  has  been  introduced  into  the  general  appro- 
priation bill  for  the  support  of  Government.  The  impropriety 
of  this  course  will  appear  manifest  from  considering  the  character 
of  that  measure.  Its  legitimate  purpose  is  to  provide  for  expenses 
which  either  have  been,  or  will  be,  incurred  under  the  authority 
of  existing  laws,  or  in  pursuance  of  the  well  established  policy 
of  the  country.  The  principle  now  to  be  decided  by  the  House 
is  entirely  new.  It  is  not  as  it  was  formerly,  whether  you  will 
complete  that  which  you  have  already  commenced ;  but  whether, 
after  having  completed,  you  will  keep  the  road  in  repair.  Appro- 
priations for  making  the  road  were  matters  of  course,  after  you 
had  finally  determined  it  should  be  constructed.  The  principle 
now  before  the  House,  however,  being  entirely  new,  should  have 
been  embraced  in  a  distinct  bill,  and  suffered  to  rest  upon  its 
own  merits.  When  you  legislate  upon  new  subjects  in  a  general 
appropriation  bill,  you  give  them  an  unfair  advantage.  You  drag 
them  along  by  the  force  of  the  bill  to  which  they  are  attached; 
and,  on  its  passage,  you  compel  members  either  to  vote  in  their 
favor,  or  to  stop  the  wheels  of  Government. 

Upon  the  same  principle  that  this  provision  has  been  intro- 
duced into  the  bill  now  before  the  House,  you  might  introduce 
into  it  any  other  claim  for  money,  whether  of  a  public  or  a  private 
nature.  The  consequences  which  would  follow,  from  pursuing 
such  a  precedent,  I  need  not  detail  to  this  House. 

In  this  case,  the  precedent  would  be  infinitely  the  more 
dangerous,  should  the  grant  be  introduced  into  the  general  appro- 
priation bill,  for  that  very  reason.  It  might  then  hereafter,  with 
some  degree  of  propriety,  be  considered  as  the  settled  policy  of 
the  country  to  support  the  road;  and  as  a  pledge  of  the  public 
faith  that  it  shall  be  repaired  out  of  the  public  Treasury. 

In  every  view,  therefore,  which  this  subject  has  presented 
to  my  mind,  I  have  been  led  to  the  conclusion  that  we  should 
concur  with  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  in  their  report,  and 
strike  out  this  appropriation  from  the  present  bill. 


1822]  THE  WESTERN  BOUNDARY  55 

REMARKS,  APRIL  25,  1822, 

ON  A  PROPOSED  APPROPRIATION  FOR    MARKING  THE  WESTERN  BOUN- 
DARY   OF   THE    UNITED    STATES  UNDER  THE  TREATY 
WITH  SPAIN  OF   FEBRUARY  aa,  1819.1 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  said,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Allen's 
argument,  that  it  was  not  a  line  that  was  to  be  fixed  by  the  Com- 
missioners, that  being  done  by  the  description  of  it  in  the  treaty ; 
but  it  was  a  line  to  be  marked.  The  national  boundaries  are 
specified  in  the  treaty ;  and  all  that  the  Commissioners  can  have 
to  do  is  to  mark  the  line  which  is  thus  specifically  defined.  The 
gentleman  from  Kentucky  was  perfectly  correct,  Mr.  B.  said, 
when  he  contended  that  the  Mexican  Government  would  be 
bound  to  run  the  line,  as  by  its  succession  to  the  rights  of  old 
Spain,  it  had  also  succeeded  to  her  duties.  What  then  would 
be  the  proper  mode  of  proceeding?  Mr.  B.  objected,  he  said, 
to  the  appointment  of  a  Commissioner  to  meet  the  Commissioner 
of  Spain;  and  when  he  did  that,  he  was  as  much  in  favor  of 
observing  the  obligations  of  the  treaty  as  any  gentleman.  Do 
we  wish  to  violate  this  contract  with  Spain  when  we  say  we  will 
not  run  this  line  in  conjunction  with  her?  No;  we  say,  that 
Mexico  has  succeeded  to  the  rights  of  Spain,  and  having  done  so, 
we  are  bound  to  carry  the  treaty  into  effect  with  the  former,  and 
not  with  the  latter.  We  made  our  contract  with  Spain — how? 
As  the  sovereign  over  those  territories.  What  has  happened 
since?  Why,  it  appears  that  the  sceptre  has  passed  from  the 
hands  of  Spain,  and  not  she  but  another  power  possesses  the 
sovereignty.  Mr.  B.  said  he  would  just  put  one  question,  by 
way  of  illustration.  Suppose,  after  this  country  was  declared 
sovereign  and  independent  during  the  Revolutionary  war,  a 
stipulation  had  been  made  between  Great  Britain  and  Spain  to  run 
our  boundary  line,  would  we  have  suffered  our  sovereignty  to  be 
violated  with  impunity?  Or  has  any  nation  now  a  right  to  go 
into  Texas  or  Mexico  and  run  the  boundary  line?  Surely  not. 
This,  Mr.  B.  said,  was  his  view  of  the  matter,  and  he  believed 
it  to  be  correct.  He  would,  therefore,  withhold  the  proposed 
appropriation;  not  that  he  would  violate  our  engagement  with 
Spain,  but  that  he  would  perform  it  to  the  proper  sovereign. 
There  was  so  palpable  an  inconsistency  between  this  appropria- 
tion and  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of  Mexico,  that  he 
could  not  vote  for  it. 


Annals  of  Congress,  17  Cong.  1  Sess.  1821-1822,  II.  1663. 


56  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1823 


1823. 
SPEECH,  FEBRUARY  7,  1823, 

ON  THE  NEW  TARIFF  BILL.1 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  said,  the  question  now 
under  discussion  before  the  Committee,  although  one  of  consider- 
able consequence,  had  assumed  an  air  of  importance  to  which  it 
was  not  entitled.  The  argument  has  proceeded,  as  though  we 
were  now  about  to  decide  whether  we  should  change  the  settled 
policy  of  this  country,  in  its  intercourse  with  foreign  nations, 
and  adopt  a  system  strictly  prohibitory  and  restrictive;  whether 
we  should  close  our  ports  against  all  the  nations  of  the  earth, 
and  sweep  our  foreign  commerce  from  the  ocean,  for  the  purpose 
of  encouraging  our  domestic  manufactures.  The  imprudence 
of  some  of  the  friends  of  the  bill,  has  given  to  its  enemies  a 
plausible  pretext  for  this  course  of  argument.  The  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Gorham)  has  availed  himself  of  this 
advantage.  Instead  of  attacking  the  provisions  contained  in  the 
bill,  he  has,  ingeniously,  and  with  a  force  of  argument  which  I 
have  rarely  heard  equalled,  assailed  some  of  the  principles  by 
which  it  has  been  supported.  He  has  considered  this  as  a  ques- 
tion, whether  we  should  at  once  abandon  the  policy  under  which 
we  have  been  acting,  from  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Consti- 
tution, and  substitute  in  its  stead  a  restrictive  system ;  and,  if  this 
were  the  true  state  of  the  case,  he  should  have  my  hearty 
co-operation. 

Assuming  these  premises,  that  gentleman  has  presented  be- 
fore us  a  number  of  horrid  images,  sufficient  to  startle  the  imag- 
ination, not  as  the  creatures  of  his  own  fancy,  which  they  truly 
are,  but  as  the  genuine  production  of  the  bill.  He  has  declared 
that  it  is  an  attempt  by  one  portion  of  the  Union,  for  its  own 
peculiar  advantage,  to  impose  ruinous  taxes  upon  another.  He 
has  represented  it  as  an  effort  to  compel  the  agriculturists  of 
the  South  to  pay  tribute  to  the  manufacturers  of  the  North ;  he 
has  proclaimed  it  to  be  a  tyrannical  measure.  He  has  gone 
further,  and  boldly  declared  that  the  people  of  the  South  should 
resist  such  a  law,  and  that  they  ought  to  resist  it.  After  this 
wonderful  display,  would  any  one  believe  that  the  present  measure 


x  Annals  of  Congress,  17  Cong.  2  Sess.  1822-1823,  893-905. 


1823]  THE  NEW  TARIFF  BILL  57 

is  dictated  by  the  pecuniary  necessities  of  the  country,  and  the 
only  question  to  be  determined  is — what  are  the  most  proper 
sources  from  which  to  derive  additional  revenue?  The  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  has  done  his  duty,  and  disclosed  to  the 
nation  the  real  situation  of  its  finances.  He  has  informed  us 
that,  in  the  year  1825,  there  will,  in  his  opinion,  be  a  deficiency, 
under  the  present  system,  of  about  $1,250,000,  even  after  allow- 
ing a  credit  for  the  $8,000,000  which  he  estimates  will,  at  the 
commencement  of  that  year,  be  remaining  in  the  Treasury,  after 
paying  the  expenses  of  the  preceding  years.  The  gentleman 
from  New  York  (Mr.  Cambreleng)  has,  notwithstanding,  de- 
clared, that  we  have  an  overflowing  Treasury,  and  that  there  is 
no  necessity  for  increasing  our  revenue.  The  Secretary  and 
he  are  at  issue  on  this  point :  and  although  I  am  disposed  to  give 
great  credit  to  his  opinions,  particularly  upon  subjects  of  that 
nature,  yet  those  of  the  distinguished  officer,  placed  by  your  laws 
at  the  head  of  the  Treasury,  are  entitled  to  still  greater  weight. 
Fortunately,  however,  this  is  a  subject  not  involved  in  any 
mystery;  but  is  one  about  which  we  can  all  judge.  We  know, 
from  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  made 
at  the  last  session,  that  the  proportion  of  our  public  debt  which 
will  be  redeemable  in  the  years  1825,  1826,  1827,  and  1828, 
amounts  to  sixty-three  millions  seven  hundred  and  eighty-six 
thousand  one  hundred  and  thirty-seven  dollars  and  seventy-four 
cents.  It  is  estimated  by  the  Secretary,  that,  after  applying  the 
eight  millions  of  dollars,  which  he  expects  will  have  accumulated 
in  the  Treasury  on  the  first  of  January,  1825,  towards  the  extin- 
guishment of  the  debt  redeemable  in  that  year,  there  will  still 
remain  a  deficit  of  about  $1,250,000. 

In  what  manner,  then,  do  gentlemen  propose  to  meet  this 
deficiency?  In  what  manner  do  they  propose,  not  only  to  effect 
this  purpose  in  1825,  but  to  pay  upwards  of  forty-six  million 
dollars  of  debt,  which  ought  to  be  paid  in  the  three  succeeding 
years?  In  what  estimation  should  that  man's  wisdom  be  held, 
who  would  fancy  himself  rich,  and  neglect  to  provide  the  means 
of  discharging  a  debt  of  ten  thousand  dollars,  which  will  not  be 
payable  till  the  year  1825,  because  he  believes  that  in  the  mean- 
time his  ordinary  revenue  will  yield  him  five  hundred  dollars  be- 
yond his  ordinary  expenses  ?  This  is  precisely  the  situation  of  the 
Government ;  and  yet  the  respectable  gentleman  from  New  York 
has  informed  us  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  providing  any 
additional  ways  and  means. 


58  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1823 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  every  member  of  this  Com- 
mittee will  concur  with  me  in  opinion,  that  our  debt  ought,  if 
possible,  to  be  discharged  as  soon  as  it  shall  be  redeemable.  No 
one  will  contend  that  a  public  debt  is  a  public  blessing.  The 
payment  of  the  national  debt  is  one  of  the  best  means  of  prepar- 
ing for  war.  The  resources  of  the  nation  ought  not  to  continue 
mortgaged  to  the  public  creditor;  but  they  should  be  left  entire, 
and  ready  to  be  applied  at  all  times  towards  the  defence  of  the 
country.     This,  at  least,  is  my  system  of  policy. 

Under  this  view  of  the  subject,  we  are  brought,  irresistibly, 
to  the  conclusion,  that  revenue  must  be  raised;  at  least,  that  it 
ought  to  be  raised.  The  question,  then,  is,  from  what  objects 
shall  we  derive  the  means  necessary  to  extinguish  the  national 
debt  ?  It  is  admitted  by  all  that  a  duty  upon  imports  is  the  most 
economical  and  least  oppressive  mode  of  raising  revenue.  It  is 
the  mode  most  consonant  to  the  feelings  of  a  free  people.  It 
does  not  require  the  agency  of  the  exciseman  or  the  tax  gatherer. 
The  practice  of  the  government  for  more  than  thirty  years  has 
sanctified  this  method  in  the  minds  of  the  people.  They  will  not 
now  readily  submit  to  direct  taxes,  or  to  excises  when  the  country 
is  at  peace.  I  say,  emphatically,  when  the  country  is  at  peace; 
because  I  know  that  in  times  of  actual  war,  or  of  approaching 
danger,  the  American  people  will  cheerfully  submit  to  any  sacri- 
fices which  may  be  necessary  to  provide  for  the  common  defence, 
and  promote  the  security  and  the  glory  of  the  nation. 

The  necessity  of  adopting  a  new  tariff,  for  the  purpose  of 
raising  revenue,  has  not  only  been  stated  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  but  he  has  distinctly  recommended  many  of  the  articles 
on  the  importation  of  which  additional  duties  should  be  imposed. 
These  are  all  embraced  in  the  provisions  of  the  present  bill,  though 
the  increase  of  duty  is  in  several  instances  greater  than  what  he 
recommended.  Yet,  notwithstanding  its  friends  have  declared 
their  intention  to  amend  it,  and  make  it  conform  more  nearly  with 
that  recommendation,  this  is  the  measure  whose  blasting  influence, 
if  adopted,  gentlemen  declare,  will  paralyze  agriculture,  ruin  com- 
merce, and  destroy  the  navy.  Phantoms,  the  most  deadly  and 
destructive,  have  been  presented  before  the  Committee,  as  the  nat- 
ural offspring  of  this  measure.  One  would  almost  be  led  to  be- 
lieve that  the  bill  now  under  consideration  was  the  true  box  of 
Pandora,  from  which,  if  enacted  into  a  law,  all  the  evils  that  can 
invade  the  human  race  would  proceed.  The  gentlemen  from 
Georgia  and  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Tattnall  and  Mr.  Gorham) 


1823]  THE  NEW  TARIFF  BILL  59 

have  proclaimed  it  tyranny,  and  tyranny  which  ought  to  be  re- 
sisted. Yet  all  this  mighty  conflagration  has  been  raised  to 
intimidate  us  from  adopting  a  system,  which  in  substance  has 
been  recommended  by  the  intelligent  and  independent  officer  at  the 
head  of  the  Treasury,  merely  because  in  its  indirect  operation 
it  may  benefit  certain  necessary  domestic  manufactures.  I  con- 
fess I  never  did  expect  to  hear  inflammatory  speeches  of  this  kind 
within  these  walls,  which  ought  to  be  sacred  to  union;  I  never 
did  expect  to  hear  the  East  counselling  the  South  to  resistance, 
that  we  might  thus  be  deterred  from  prosecuting  a  measure  of 
policy,  urged  upon  us  by  the  necessities  of  the  country.  If  I 
know  myself,  I  am  a  politician  neither  of  the  East,  nor  of  the 
West,  of  the  North,  nor  of  the  South :  I  therefore  shall  forever 
avoid  any  expressions,  the  direct  tendency  of  which  must  be  to 
create  sectional  jealousies,  sectional  divisions,  and  at  length  dis- 
union, that  worst  and  last  of  all  political  calamities. 

The  gentlemen  will,  I  trust,  be  mistaken  in  their  object. 
They  will  not  be  able,  by  calling  this  bill  a  prohibitory  system, 
and  by  taking  that  for  granted  which  has  no  existence,  except  in 
their  own  imagination,  to  deter  its  friends  from  pursuing  a 
steady  course  in  the  accomplishment  of  their  object.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Massachusetts,  (Mr.  Gorham,)  like  the  ancient 
Archimedes,  only  wants  a  place  to  stand  upon;  he  could  then 
move  the  world.  If  the  bill  really  contained  those  destructive 
provisions  which  have  been  placed  in  terrible  array  before  us, 
the  whole  American  people  would  rise  up  with  one  consent  against 
it ;  not  in  rebellion,  because  for  that  there  could  be  no  occasion ; 
but  in  their  sovereign  character  of  voters,  and  discharge  from  the 
councils  of  the  nation  those  Representatives  who  had  trampled 
upon  their  dearest  rights. 

I  have  now  arrived  at  that  point  in  the  argument  when  it 
becomes  necessary  that  I  should  declare  to  what  extent  I  am  will- 
ing, at  this  time,  to  proceed  in  the  protection  of  domestic  manu- 
factures. Upon  this  subject,  I  hope  I  shall  not  be  misunder- 
stood. I  think  I  have  shown,  that  it  is  now  necessary  to  increase 
our  revenue  from  imposts.  In  selecting  the  objects  of  additional 
duty,  I  would  do  it  with  a  view  to  the  encouragement  of  such 
domestic  manufactures  as  are  necessary  for  the  defence  of  the 
nation,  and  for  the  consumption  of  the  great  mass  of  your  people ; 
and  more  particularly  those  articles  of  which  your  country  fur- 
nishes the  raw  material  in  abundance.  By  this  means,  whilst  you 
raise  revenue,  you  indirectly,  but  gradually,  encourage  such  man- 


60  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1823 

ufactures  as  will  render  you  more  independent  of  foreign  nations. 
The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Gorham)  has  asked, 
are  we  not  independent  when  we  purchase  what  we  want  from 
foreign  nations,  and  pay  them  the  price  demanded?  I  answer, 
yes ;  but  we  would  be  much  more  independent  if  we  could  derive 
from  our  own  manufactories  those  articles  which  are  commonly 
called  the  necessaries  of  life,  and  those  without  which  you  cannot 
carry  on  war.  When  a  nation  is  in  this  situation,  she  is  prepared 
for  a  state  of  war,  as  well  as  of  peace;  she  is  prepared  for  the 
day  of  adversity,  as  well  as  the  day  of  prosperity.  Her  neces- 
sary supplies  are  not  then  dependent  upon  the  will  of  foreign 
Powers,  who  may  be  in  a  state  of  hostility  against  her;  but  she 
has  her  own  resources  under  her  own  control. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Gorham)  has 
urged,  as  another  argument  against  this  bill,  that  it  is  a  mere 
compromise,  and  that  there  is  no  one  article  on  which  an  addi- 
tional duty  could  be  imposed  without  the  others.  This  may  be 
true,  and  it  ought  to  be  true.  The  Federal  Constitution  was 
itself  a  compromise.  Our  Government  extends  over  a  vast  ter- 
ritory ;  and,  therefore,  in  the  selection  of  articles  on  which  to  im- 
pose additional  duties,  you  should  consult  the  advantage  of  every 
part.  You  should  study  equality,  and  scatter  the  advantages  of 
your  system  as  widely  as  possible.  This  is  the  only  course  of 
policy  which  will  perpetuate  harmony  among  all  the  States.  It 
was  by  a  combination  of  this  nature,  between  the  cotton  growers 
of  the  South  and  the  manufacturers  of  the  North,  that  the  intro- 
duction of  coarse  cottons  into  the  country  from  abroad  has  been 
in  effect  prohibited,  by  the  high  rate  of  duties.  Is  it  not,  then, 
ungenerous  for  the  South  and  the  East  to  sound  the  tocsin  of 
alarm  and  of  resistance,  when  we  wish  to  benefit  the  agriculture 
and  manufactures  of  the  Middle  and  the  Western  States  in- 
directly, by  the  imposition  of  necessary  duties?  We  do  not  ask 
the  same  encouragement  for  the  growth  and  manufacture  of  any 
article,  that  has  been  afforded  to  that  of  cotton.  For  one,  I 
desire  at  present  no  prohibitory  duty  on  any  other  article.  All 
that  we  ask  of  you  is,  that,  as  you  must  raise  revenue,  you  should 
do  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  give  some  indirect  encouragement 
to  the  agriculture  and  manufactures  of  the  middle  portion  of 
the  Union.  Give  us  a  small  share  of  the  same  advantages  which 
we  have  freely  concurred  in  bestowing  upon  you. 

This  bill  will  make  no  change  in  the  well  settled  policy  of  the 
country.     It  pursues  the  system  under  which  this  Union  has 


1823]  THE  NEW  TARIFF  BILL  61 

flourished.  The  practice  of  the  Government,  for  more  than  thirty- 
years,  has  been  gradually  to  encourage  those  domestic  manu- 
factures most  important  to  the  country.  We  have  moved  along 
in  this  course,  not  rashly,  but  cautiously.  The  end  has  been 
the  collection  of  revenue;  in  its  attainment  we  have  adopted  a 
system  of  duties  calculated  to  afford  protection  to  our  own 
manufactures,  not  for  the  purpose  of  prohibiting  the  importation 
of  foreign  fabrics,  but  to  bring  our  own  into  fair  competition  with 
them.  This  policy,  which  accommodates  itself  to  our  circum- 
stances, is  infinitely  better  than  either  the  dreams  of  political  econ- 
omists, who,  on  the  one  hand,  would  cast  off  every  restriction, 
and  open  your  ports  to  all  the  world,  or  the  systems  of  those  who, 
on  the  other,  are  so  devotedly  the  friends  of  domestic  manufac- 
tures, that  they  would  sacrifice  the  commercial,  and  injure  the  agri- 
cultural interests  of  the  country  for  their  promotion.  Experience 
is  the  best  school  of  politics.  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
(Mr.  Gorham)  has  stated  that,  for  the  last  twenty  years,  all  the 
distinguished  writers  on  political  economy  have  denounced  the 
restrictive  system,  and  have  advocated  what  has  been  called  the 
"  let  us  alone  "  policy.  In  answer  to  their  theory,  I  will  produce 
an  experiment.  The  Emperor  Alexander  became  a  convert  to 
these  notions.  In  1820  he  adopted  a  new  tariff,  reducing  the 
duties  generally,  and  repealing  most  of  the  prohibitions.  The 
ports  of  that  vast  empire  were  thrown  open  to  all  the  merchants 
of  the  world.  The  golden  age  of  modern  political  economists 
had  arrived;  they  had  made  a  convert,  who  had  the  power  and 
the  inclination  to  bring  their  system  into  practical  effect.  What 
were  the  consequences  ?  Two  short  years  were  sufficient  for  the 
experiment.  In  two  short  years  Russia  was  reduced  from  a 
state  of  unexampled  prosperity,  to  which  she  had  attained  by 
pursuing  a  contrary  policy,  to  a  state  of  unexampled  depression. 
The  edict  was  repealed;  a  new  tariff  was  adopted;  and  it  was 
declared  by  that  Government  that,  under  the  operation  of  the 
tariff  of  1820,  "  agriculture  without  a  market,  industry  without 
protection,  languish  and  decline.  Specie  is  exported,  and  the 
most  solid  commercial  houses  are  shaken."  I  would  recommend 
to  gentlemen  a  perusal  of  the  whole  of  this  admirable  State  paper, 
from  which  I  have  quoted  but  a  few  lines. 

The  gentlemen  have  contended  that,  should  this  bill  be 
adopted,  the  agricultural  interest  of  the  country  will  be  greatly 
injured.  If  this  were  the  case,  it  would  be  a  conclusive  objection 
to  its  passage.     The  farmers  are  the  most  useful,  as  they  are  the 


m  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1823 

most  numerous  class  of  society.  No  measure  ought  ever  to  be 
adopted  by  the  government  which  would  bear  hardly  upon  them. 
They  are  the  body  of  men  among  whom  you  may  expect  to  find, 
in  an  eminent  degree,  that  virtue  without  which  your  republican 
institutions  could  not  continue  to  exist.  Agriculture  is  the  most 
noble  employment  of  man.  It  communicates  vigor  to  the  body 
and  independence  to  the  mind.  My  constituents  are  principally 
farmers,  and  I  should  feel  it  both  my  duty  and  my  inclination  to 
resist  any  measure  which  would  be  pernicious  to  their  interest. 

The  agriculturists  are  the  great  body  of  consumers.  It  is 
from  them  that  the  revenue  must  principally  be  derived,  no  matter 
what  may  be  the  mode  by  which  it  is  collected.  They  must 
equally  pay  it,  whether  in  the  shape  of  an  excise,  a  land  tax,  or 
an  impost  upon  the  importation  of  foreign  articles.  I  will  never 
consent  to  adopt  a  general  restrictive  system,  because  that  class 
of  the  community  would  then  be  left  at  the  mercy  of  the  manu- 
facturers. The  interest  of  the  many  would  thus  be  sacrificed 
to  promote  the  wealth  of  the  few.  The  farmer,  then,  in  addition 
to  the  premium  which  he  would  thus  be  compelled  to  pay  the 
manufacturer,  would  have  also  to  sustain  the  expenses  of  the 
government.  If  this  bill  proposed  a  system  which  would  lead  to 
such  abuses,  it  should  not  receive  my  support. 

I  consider  this  bill  as  a  revenue  measure.  Money  must  be 
collected — the  public  debt  must  be  paid — and  a  large  proportion 
of  the  money  to  pay  it  must  come  from  the  farmer.  I  have  shown 
that  the  imposition  of  additional  duties  is  the  best  and  cheapest 
mode  of  collecting  taxes.  If,  then,  at  the  same  time  that  the 
farmer  is  paying  an  additional  duty  to  the  Government  in  the 
increased  price  of  the  imported  foreign  articles  which  he  con- 
sumes, the  domestic  manufacturer  can,  by  that  means,  be  enabled 
to  enter  into  competition  with  the  foreign  manufacturer,  in  the 
home  market,  in  what  manner  is  the  farmer  injured?  He  is  not 
only  not  injured,  but  he  will  be  benefited.  If,  for  example,  the 
agriculturist,  by  paying  a  small  additional  duty  for  one  or  two 
years,  can  be  certain  then  of  purchasing  domestic  articles  equally 
cheap  with  foreign;  and  if  he  can  thus  procure  a  home  market 
for  the  products  of  his  own  industry,  he  is  greatly  the  gainer  by 
the  measure.  The  loss,  if  any,  which  he  would  sustain  at  first, 
is  amply  compensated  by  the  benefit  at  last.  This  was  the  case 
with  respect  to  the  duty  imposed  upon  coarse  cotton  goods.  Al- 
though the  growers  of  cotton,  and  other  consumers,  may,  in 
the  beginning,  have  had  to  pay  more  for  articles  of  this  descrip- 
tion than  formerly,  yet  the  price  is  at  present  reduced  lower  than 


1823]  THE  NEW  TARIFF  BILL  63 

it  ever  was.  The  goods  are  so  much  better  and  cheaper  than  the 
foreign  fabric,  that  they  are  now  exported.  The  planters  of  the 
South  have  thus  obtained  a  certain  market  in  the  North  for  their 
cotton ;  not  one  liable  to  the  fluctuations  and  the  changes  incident 
to  the  policy  of  foreign  governments.  The  trade  and  the  mutual 
dependence  to  which  this  measure  has  given  birth,  serve  to  tighten 
the  bonds  of  union  between  these  two  portions  of  our  country, 
and  is,  therefore,  a  political  measure  of  great  consequence.  The 
planters  of  the  South  have  thus  become  necessary  to  the  manu- 
facturers of  the  North.  And  thus,  if  a  wise  and  prudent  system 
of  policy  shall  be  pursued,  all  the  States  will  be  indissolubly  bound 
together  by  their  interest,  as  well  as  their  inclination.  Nature 
has  declared  that  our  mutual  wants,  and  our  mutual  means  of 
gratifying  them,  shall  bind  this  Republic  together.  Nothing  but 
the  mistaken  policy  of  man  can  ever  tear  it  asunder. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Gorham)  has 
argued  as  though  the  direct  effect  of  this  bill  would  be  to  destroy 
commerce,  and  to  prostrate  the  Navy.  If  this  were  true,  it  would 
be  a  most  powerful  argument  against  it.  The  merchants  are  a 
respectable  and  useful  class  of  men,  and  are  entitled  to  the  pro- 
tection of  the  Government.  Without  commerce,  your  Navy 
cannot  exist.  It  is  the  only  school  in  which  sailors  can  be  in- 
structed. The  first  lesson  in  politics  which  I  ever  learned  was 
to  admire  the  Navy.  That  which  in  the  beginning  was  perhaps 
honest  prejudice  has  now  become  rational  conviction.  The  Navy 
is  our  best  defence  from  external  enemies ;  it  is  our  best  security 
for  perpetual  union.  The  sailors  of  the  Northern  and  Middle 
States  are  necessary  to  the  prosperity  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  the 
vast  valley  of  the  Mississippi.  The  outlet  of  that  river  can  only 
be  preserved  free  and  open  by  a  naval  force.  I  would  not,  there- 
fore, sacrifice  the  interests  of  commerce  to  promote  manufac- 
tures. This  bill  will  produce  no  such  effect.  Its  operation  in 
favor  of  manufactures  will  be  gradual — almost  imperceptible. 
The  additional  consumption  from  the  rapid  increase  of  our 
population  will  be  equal,  or  nearly  equal,  to  the  increase  of  manu- 
factured articles.  If  at  last  any  of  the  branches  shall  become  so 
perfect  in  its  kind  as  to  exclude  foreign  articles  of  the  same 
description,  this  will  be  the  work  of  many  years.  In  the  mean- 
time, the  commercial  capital  employed  in  that  particular  trade 
will  find  new  channels.  Speaking  of  this  subject,  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  in  his  annual  report,  says : 

"  It  is  however  presumed  that  the  revenue  will  continue  to 
be  augmented  by  the  proposed  alterations  in  the  tariff  until  the 


64  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1823 

public  debt  shall  have  been  redeemed;  after  which,  the  public 
expenditure  in  time  of  peace  will  be  diminished  to  the  extent  of 
the  Sinking  Fund,  which  is  at  present  ten  millions  of  dollars. 
But,  if,  contrary  to  the  present  anticipations,  the  proposed  aug- 
mentation of  duties  should,  before  the  public  debt  be  redeemed, 
produce  a  diminution  of  the  revenue  arising  from  the  importation 
of  those  articles,  a  corresponding,  if  not  a  greater  augmentation, 
may  be  confidently  expected  upon  other  articles  imported  into  the 
United  States.  This  supposition  rests  upon  the  two-fold  con- 
viction that  foreign  articles  nearly  equal  to  the  value  of  the 
domestic  exports  will  be  imported  and  consumed;  and  that  the 
substitution  of  particular  classes  of  domestic  articles  for  those 
of  foreign  nations  not  only  does  not  necessarily  diminish  the  value 
of  domestic  exports,  but  usually  tends  to  increase  that  value." 

There  is  one  circumstance  which  will  always  serve  to  secure 
the  merchants  of  the  country  against  the  manufacturers,  and  that 
is  the  necessity,  in  time  of  peace,  of  collecting  our  revenue  from 
imposts.  Should  such  a  general  prohibitory  system  be  adopted 
in  favor  of  domestic  manufactures,  as  to  make  a  resort  to  direct 
taxes  necessary  for  the  support  of  Government  in  time  of  peace, 
the  reaction  will  be  dreadful.  The  people  would  at  once  rise  in 
their  majesty,  and  legislate  the  evil  out  of  existence.  In  this, 
however,  their  own  true  interest  will  compel  the  manufacturers 
to  study  the  interest  of  the  merchants. 

It  has  been  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr. 
Gorham)  that  if  you  impose  additional  duties  on  foreign  articles, 
you  thereby  give  to  the  domestic  manufacturer  a  pledge  which 
you  can  never  in  good  faith  withdraw.  That,  therefore,  you 
cannot  repeal  laws  of  this  nature,  should  they  prove  injurious. 
This  conclusion  I  deny.  The  manufacturers  must  act  upon  the 
laws  at  their  own  peril.  They  are  merely  intended  to  plant  those 
manufactures  natural  to  our  soil  and  to  our  country.  After  they 
have  been  fairly  brought  into  existence,  if  they  cannot  support 
themselves  without  extraordinary  duties,  or,  in  other  words, 
without  continual  contributions  from  the  consumers,  they  must 
be  abandoned  by  the  Government.  If  any  manufacture  is  dis- 
covered to  be  a  mere  hot-bed  production — that  cannot  flourish  in 
our  climate  without  artificial  warmth — it  must  be  left  to  its  fate. 
It  is  one  of  such  a  description  as  should  never  have  been  planted. 
In  order  to  avoid  this  disagreeable  alternative,  however,  we  should 
be  careful  to  legislate  in  favor  of  such  branches  of  manufactures 
only  as  are  congenial  to  our  country.     We  have  hitherto  been 


1823]  THE  NEW  TARIFF  BILL  65 

eminently  successful  in  this  particular.  The  selection  of  cotton 
manufactures  was  judicious  in  the  highest  degree.  They  have 
now  taken  deep  root,  and  can  flourish  against  any  foreign  com- 
petition. If  the  case  had  been  otherwise,  the  result  would  have 
shown  that  they  ought  not  to  have  been  brought  into  existence 
by  the  protection  of  our  laws. 

Another  powerful  reason  which  exists  for  the  passage  of  this 
bill,  is,  that  the  balance  of  trade  for  some  years  has  been  clearly 
against  us.  It  is  a  notorious  fact  that  specie,  that  Government 
stock,  that  Bank  stock  of  the  United  States,  and  even  the  canal 
stock  of  the  State  of  New  York, — are  rapidly  leaving  the  country, 
to  pay  the  debts  which  we  owe  in  Great  Britain.  Our  importa- 
tions have  been  extravagant,  and  should  they  continue  so  great, 
our  wealth  will  be  gradually  drained  from  us,  for  the  purpose  of 
enriching  foreign  manufacturers. 

It  has  been  said  that  this  evil  will  correct  itself.  So  it  must ; 
but  it  will  not  be  until  the  country  is  drained  of  its  wealth,  and  our 
merchants  can  no  longer  obtain  credit  abroad.  It  will  not  be 
until  we  have  got  into  a  state  of  debt  and  depression,  from  which 
it  will  require  years  to  recover. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  (Mr.  Cambreleng)  has 
declared,  that  the  larger  the  balance  of  trade  against  us,  the 
greater  the  evidence  of  our  prosperity.  This,  taken  literally, 
is  a  paradox,  which  I  know  the  gentleman  did  not  mean.  His 
intention  was  to  say,  that  the  larger  the  apparent  balance  of  trade 
was  against  us,  on  the  books  of  the  custom-house,  the  stronger 
the  evidence  of  our  prosperity.  For  example,  suppose  our  ex- 
ports amount  to  $16,000,000,  our  imports  to  $20,000,000,  his 
conclusion  is,  that  our  commercial  capital,  industry  and  enterprise, 
are  worth  imports  to  the  value  of  $4,000,000,  and  that  thus  the 
account  is  balanced,  and  the  country  is  enriched.  This  would 
be  true,  provided,  at  the  end  of  the  negotiation,  we  were  clear 
of  debt.  Without  showing  that  to  be  the  case,  this  argument 
is  merely  begging  the  question.  Let  me  put  a  case,  which 
approaches  much  nearer  to  the  truth.  Suppose  our  exports  to  be 
but  $16,000,000,  our  imports  $20,000,000,  and  at  the  end  of 
the  year  we  are  $2,000,000  in  debt,  how  would  the  balance  of 
the  trade  then  stand?  It  would  be  precisely  $2,000,000  against 
us.  That  this  supposition  approaches  much  more  nearly  to  the 
real  state  of  our  foreign  trade  is  evident,  from  the  history  of 
the  country  for  the  last  few  years.  Is  it  not  notorious,  that  our 
money  and  our  stock  are  rapidly  disappearing,  notwithstanding 
5 


66  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1823 

all  the  value  of  our  commercial  capital  and  industry  employed  in 
foreign  trade?  I  am  not  one  of  those  political  croakers,  who 
judge  of  the  balance  of  trade  by  the  books  of  the  custom-house. 
If  any  estimate  formed  upon  them  were  true,  our  imports  so  far 
exceed  our  exports,  that  we  are,  and  have  been  for  years,  driving 
on  to  ruin  with  dreadful  rapidity.  This,  we  know  not  to  be 
the  fact.  To  our  imports  must  be  added,  all  the  value  of  our  com- 
mercial industry  and  enterprise,  when  we  would  compare  them 
with  our  exports,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  true  balance 
of  trade.  Their  value  never  can  be  known  with  any  tolerable 
accuracy.  When,  however,  we  find,  that  the  precious  metals  and 
our  stocks  have  continued  for  years  to  be  leaving  our  country; 
when  we  know  that  the  rate  of  exchange  has  been,  during  all  that 
time,  in  favor  of  England,  the  conclusion  is  irresistible,  that  the 
actual  balance  of  trade  must  be  against  us ;  but  to  what  amount, 
I  admit  we  cannot  ascertain. 

It  has  been  said,  that  as  gold  is  the  only  legal  tender  in 
England,  and  silver  is  a  mere  article  of  merchandise,  and  that  as 
the  value  of  silver,  compared  with  that  of  gold,  is  much  greater 
in  this  country,  than  in  England,  it  is  only  the  apparent  rate  of 
exchange  which  is  against  us.  This  circumstance,  I  admit,  proves 
that  the  rate  of  exchange  is  not  so  much  against  us  as  it  appears 
to  be.  But,  making  every  allowance  for  this  difference,  exchange 
is,  and  has  been  for  years,  from  four  to  seven  per  cent,  in  favor 
of  England.  This  shows  conclusively,  that  funds  in  England 
are  always  wanted  by  our  merchants  in  this  country;  and  for 
what  purpose?  Is  it  not  self-evident,  that  it  must  be  to  pay  the 
difference  between  the  value  of  our  exports  and  our  imports? 

It  is  perhaps  unfortunate  that  this  bill  was  reported  by  the 
Committee  on  Manufactures.  Had  one,  containing  the  same 
principles,  emanated  from  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means, 
as  a  revenue  measure,  it  would  have  encountered  much  less  oppo- 
sition. I  ask  gentlemen,  however,  to  look  through  the  form 
into  the  substance,  and  not  suffer  themselves  to  be  alarmed  at  the 
adoption  of  a  wise  and  politic  system,  merely  because  it  has  been 
entitled  "  a  bill  for  the  more  effectual  encouragement  and  pro- 
tection of  certain  domestic  manufactures,"  and  not  to  raise  rev- 
enue. The  title  of  the  bill  can  at  any  time  be  changed,  and  this 
would  at  once  destroy  one-half  of  the  arguments  which  have 
been  urged  against  its  passage. 

I  have  thus  expressed  my  ideas  respecting  the  general  prin- 
ciples of  the  bill.     It  contains  provisions,  however,  to  which  I  am 


1823]  THE  NEW  TARIFF  BILL  67 

unfriendly,  after  having  given  them  the  most  deliberate  consider- 
ation. I  am  willing  to  encourage  the  manufacture  of  wool,  by 
imposing  an  additional  duty  of  five  per  cent,  upon  the  importation 
of  the  foreign  manufacture.  The  duty  will  then  be  thirty  per 
cent,  ad  valorem.  This  in  my  opinion,  is  sufficient,  at  least  for 
the  present.  The  provision  which  declares,  that  the  minimum 
valuation  of  each  square  yard,  on  which  a  duty  is  imposed,  shall 
be  eighty  cents,  would  increase  the  duty  to  one  hundred  per  cent, 
upon  coarse  woolens.  This  would  at  once  amount  to  a  prohibi- 
tion of  articles  of  that  description — a  measure  for  which  the 
country  is  not  at  this  time  prepared.  Although  we  import  a  vast 
quantity  of  woolen  goods  from  abroad,  we  have  not  the  raw 
material  to  supply  even  the  woolen  manufactures  which  already 
exist  at  home.  We  are,  therefore,  under  the  necessity  of  import- 
ing wool  itself.  What  would  then  be  the  inevitable  consequence 
of  this  measure,  in  the  present  state  of  the  country?  It  would 
for  many  years,  until  we  could  raise  wool  and  establish  manufac- 
tories sufficient  to  supply  the  whole  country,  double  the  price 
of  an  article  essential  to  the  comfort  of  the  poor.  It  would  be  a 
tax  levied  upon  that  portion  of  society  least  able  to  sustain  it,  and 
given  as  a  premium  to  the  manufacture  of  wool.  Let  us  proceed 
gradually.  If,  after  the  lapse  of  years,  we  shall  discover  that 
we  have  an  abundance  of  the  raw  material  at  home,  and  the  manu- 
facture of  it  is  so  well  understood  in  the  country,  that  the  domestic 
competition  will,  in  a  short  time  reduce  the  price  as  low  or  lower 
than  that  of  the  foreign  manufacture,  then,  and  not  till  then, 
should  we  impose  a  prohibitory  duty.  It  was  thus  we  proceeded 
with  respect  to  coarse  cottons,  and  experience  has  justified  the 
measure.  At  present,  I  am  opposed  to  the  imposition  of  a 
prohibitory  duty  on  any  foreign  articles,  necessary  to  the  comfort 
of  the  great  body  of  our  people. 

I  am  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  small  additional  duty  of  five 
dollars  per  ton,  proposed  by  this  bill  on  foreign  iron.  In  the 
opinion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  this  would  be  strictly 
a  revenue  measure.  I  have  made  many  inquiries  on  the  subject, 
and  the  result  has  been  a  conviction  upon  my  mind,  that,  under 
the  new  duty,  as  much  of  that  article  would  be  imported  as  there 
is  at  present.  I  confess,  I  was  somewhat  astonished  to  hear  this 
proposition  opposed  with  so  much  earnestness  by  the  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts,  (Mr.  Baylies,)  and  the  gentleman  from 
Rhode  Island,  (Mr.  Durfee,)  particularly  the  latter.  He  resides 
in  a  manufacturing  district.     The  eastern  people  have,  by  the 


68  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1823 

indulgence  and  protection  of  the  Government,  acquired  almost  a 
monopoly  of  coarse  cotton  goods.  The  cottons  and  the  sugars 
of  the  South  have  been  amply  protected.  I  am  sorry,  therefore, 
to  find  that  gentlemen,  from  those  portions  of  the  Union,  are 
unwilling  to  afford  a  small  share  of  that  bounty  to  the  Middle 
States,  which  has  been  so  liberally  extended  to  them. 

It  has  been  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  New  York,  (Mr. 
Cambreleng,)  that  the  manufacturers  of  this  article  are  now  in 
a  prosperous  condition.  In  this  he  is  certainly  mistaken.  To 
carry  on  the  manufacture  of  iron,  a  great  capital  and  a  large 
body  of  land,  producing  timber,  are  both  necessary.  Those  iron 
masters  who  had  acquired  sufficient  wealth  to  survive  the  general 
wreck  in  which  a  large  proportion  of  that  class  of  citizens  has  been 
involved,  are  now  prospering,  if  they  live  in  a  neighborhood  at 
some  distance  from  the  seacoast,  in  which  there  is  a  demand  for 
all  the  iron  they  can  manufacture.  In  such  a  situation  they  can 
bring  domestic  into  competition  with  foreign  iron;  because,  in 
addition  to  the  duty  which  it  pays,  the  expense  of  transportation 
into  the  country  is  added  to  its  price.  What  is  the  condition 
of  those  manufacturers  of  iron  who  have  no  market  in  their  own 
neighborhood,  and  who,  in  addition  to  what  the  article  costs  them 
at  home,  have  to  pay  the  price  of  transporting  it  to  market?  Go 
into  the  interior  and  mountainous  districts  of  Pennsylvania,  and 
you  will  there  discover.  That  country  abounds  with  ore,  with 
wood,  and  with  water  power.  Some  years  ago  manufactories 
of  iron  started  up  in  abundance.  They  diffused  wealth  all 
around  them.  They  afforded  the  best  and  surest  market  to  the 
neighboring  country  for  the  products  of  agriculture.  It  is  now  a 
melancholy  spectacle  to  behold  them.  They  have  sunk  under  the 
false  policy  of  the  Government,  and  their  ruin  has  essentially 
injured  the  whole  agricultural  community  by  which  they  were 
surrounded. 

Will  the  gentlemen  from  the  East  and  South  refuse  to  grant 
this  small  boon  to  the  farmers  and  manufacturers  of  the  Middle 
States  ?  Suppose  that  the  price  of  iron  should  be  raised  to  them 
$5  per  ton,  which  is  by  no  means  certain,  would  they,  for  the 
sake  of  twenty-five  cents  per  hundred,  refuse  to  grant  us  this 
trifling  advantage?  I  trust  not,  especially  when  they  consider 
that  iron  is  a  necessary  both  in  war  and  in  peace,  and  we  ought 
not  to  be  dependent  for  its  supply  on  foreign  nations. 

I  am,  also,  decidedly  in  favor  of  an  additional  duty  upon 
articles  manufactured  of  flax ;  because  it  will  operate  as  a  direct 


1823]  THE  NEW  TARIFF  BILL  69 

encouragement  to  the  growers  of  that  article,  and  thus  favor 
the  agricultural  interest. 

For  the  same  reason,  I  am  friendly  to  an  additional  duty  on 
foreign  hemp.  The  vast  and  fertile  region  watered  by  the 
Mississippi  and  its  tributary  streams,  is  capable  of  producing  an 
abundance  of  that  article  to  supply  the  demand  of  the  world. 
Why,  then,  should  we  go  to  Russia  for  our  hemp?  Why  should 
we  not  give  to  the  growers  of  it  some  additional  encouragement, 
which  will  enable  them  to  enter  into  fair  competition,  in  our 
own  market,  with  the  foreign  article?  If  you  will  do  so,  in  a 
very  little  time  hemp  will  be  produced  in  such  abundance,  that 
the  price,  instead  of  being  increased,  will  be  diminished.  It  will 
soon  be  prepared  for  use  as  well  as  the  Russian  hemp.  I  have 
no  wish  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  that  article;  all  I  desire 
is  to  see  a  fair  competition  established  in  our  own  market  between 
that  of  foreign  and  of  domestic  growth.  May  not  the  agricul- 
turists of  the  West  say,  with  justice,  to  the  cotton  growers  of  the 
South,  and  manufacturers  of  the  East,  who  have  both  been  pro- 
tected by  the  fostering  care  of  the  Government — we  are  your 
best  customers;  we  consume  immense  quantities  of  your  goods; 
why  will  you,  then,  go  to  Russia  for  your  hemp,  instead  of  pur- 
chasing it  from  us  ?  Why  will  you  be  dependent  upon  a  foreign 
nation  for  an  article  absolutely  necessary  to  the  existence  of  your 
Navy,  when  your  own  country  can  afford  it  in  abundance? 
Whether  the  additional  duty  proposed  in  the  present  bill  be  too 
high  or  not,  I  will  not  say,  until  I  have  received  further  infor- 
mation on  the  subject. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  after  we  shall  have  done  all  this,  a  large 
and  most  important  portion  of  your  Union  will  have  been  com- 
paratively neglected.  What  have  you  done  for  those  States 
whose  staple  commodity  is  grain?  The  island  of  Great  Britain, 
which  supplies  you  with  immense  quantities  of  her  manufactures, 
will  not  receive  in  exchange  a  single  bushel  of  our  grain  or  a 
barrel  of  our  flour.  Their  ports  are  entirely  closed  against  our 
breadstuffs,  because  it  is  their  policy  to  give  their  own  agri- 
culturists exclusive  possession  of  the  home  market.  In  adopting 
any  measure  for  the  collection  of  additional  revenue,  you  should 
not  forget  the  grain-growing  States.  It  is  my  intention,  there- 
fore, to  propose,  as  an  amendment  to  this  bill,  that  an  additional 
duty  of  ten  cents  per  gallon  be  imposed  upon  foreign  spirits. 
This  would  operate  directly  in  favor  of  the  farmer,  by  increasing 
the  price  of  the  grain  out  of  which  whiskey  is  made;    and  the 


70  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1823 

moral  consequences  which  would  flow  from  enhancing  the  price 
of  that  article,  would  be  quite  as  favorable  as  those  which  are 
political.  As  I  intend,  when  I  shall  offer  the  amendment,  to 
present  my  views  upon  it  somewhat  in  detail,  I  shall  not  now 
trouble  the  Committee  further  upon  this  subject. 

Upon  the  whole,  then,  I  consider  the  present  measure  as  one 
of  great  importance  to  the  best  interests  of  this  country.  It  is  a 
bill,  as  much,  if  not  more  for  the  encouragement  of  agriculture 
than  of  manufactures.  I  have  the  interests  of  agriculture  at 
heart.  If  I  could,  for  a  single  moment,  believe,  in  the  language 
of  the  gentleman  from  Georgia,  ( Mr.  Tattnall, )  that  this  bill  would 
compel  the  agricultural  to  bow  down  before  the  manufacturing 
interest,  which  he  has  figuratively  called  the  golden  calf,  I  should 
consider  myself  a  traitor  to  my  country  in  giving  it  any  support. 
Believing,  however,  as  I  do,  that  it  is  a  measure  fraught  with 
good  to  all,  and  doing  injury  to  none,  I  trust  that  the  gentlemen 
who  have  shown  so  much  hostility  to  it  will  withdraw  their  oppo- 
sition, and  assist  us  in  perfecting  its  details.  It  may  then  be  made 
equally  advantageous  to  the  East,  and  to  the  West,  and  to  the 
North,  and  to  the  South. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  10,  1823, 

AS  TO  THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  CRIMES.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  submitted  the  following : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be  instructed  to  inquire 
whether  there  be  any,  and,  if  any,  what,  crimes  not  now  punishable  by  law, 
to  which  punishments  ought  to  be  affixed. 

In  offering  this  resolution,  Mr.  B.  said,  it  had  been  decided 
that  the  courts  of  the  United  States  had  no  power  to  punish  any 
act,  no  matter  how  criminal  in  its  nature,  unless  Congress  have 
declared  it  to  be  a  crime,  and  annexed  a  punishment  to  its  per- 
petration.2 Offences  at  the  common  law,  not  declared  such  by 
acts  of  Congress,  are  therefore  not  within  the  range  of  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Federal  courts.  Congress  have  annexed  punish- 
ments but  to  a  very  few  crimes,  and  those  all  of  an  aggravated 
nature.  The  consequence  is,  that  a  great  variety  of  actions,  to 
which  a  high  degree  of  moral  guilt  is  attached,  and  which  are 


1  Annals  of  Congress,  17  Cong.  2  Sess.  1822-1823,  929. 

2  The  case  here  referred  to  is  United  States  v.  Hudson,  7  Cranch,  32. 


1823]  TO  JOHN  SERGEANT  71 

punished  as  crimes  at  the  common  law,  and  by  every  State  in  the 
Union,  may  be  committed  with  impunity  on  the  high  seas,  and 
in  any  place  where  Congress  has  exclusive  jurisdiction.  To 
afford  an  example :  An  assault  and  battery,  with  intent  to  commit 
murder,  may  be  perpetrated,  either  on  the  high  seas,  or  in  a  fort, 
magazine,  arsenal,  or  dockyard,  belonging  to  the  United  States, 
and  there  exists  no  law  to  punish  such  an  offence. 

This  is  a  palpable  defect  in  our  system,  which  requires  a 
remedy ;  and  it  is  astonishing  that  none  has  ever  yet  been  supplied. 
My  attention  has  been  called  to  the  subject  by  a  distinguished  pro- 
fessional gentleman  now  in  this  city.  Mr.  B.  said  he  did  not 
expect  that  any  bill  could  be  matured  and  passed  into  a  law  at  the 
present  session.  If,  however,  the  Judiciary  Committee  would 
take  the  subject  into  consideration,  and  report  upon  it  to  the 
House  before  it  rises,  it  would  call  public  attention  to  it,  and 
insure  the  passage  of  a  bill  at  an  early  period  of  the  next  Congress. 

The  resolution  was  then  adopted. 


TO  JOHN    SERGEANT.1 

Lancaster  9th  May  1823. 
Dear  Sir/ 

I  have  often  taken  up  my  pen  to  write  to  you  since  I  left 
Washington  but  as  often  laid  it  down  not  knowing  precisely  what 
I  should  write.  After  having  collected  all  the  information  in  my 
power,  I  will  now  at  length  venture  with  great  diffidence  to  offer 
you  my  opinion  as  to  the  propriety  of  suffering  yourself  to  be- 
come a  candidate  at  the  approaching  election  for  governor.  My 
advice  may  perhaps  be  the  more  agreeable  because  I  have  good 
reason  to  believe  it  will  correspond  with  your  own  determination. 

In  my  opinion  there  are  many  reasons  why  you  should  not 
suffer  your  name  to  be  used  at  the  present  time  &  perhaps 
they  are  such  as  no  one  but  an  individual  who  feels  an  interest 
in  your  personal  welfare  would  communicate.  The  party  which 
would  nominate  you  could  select  no  other  man  who  would  obtain 
so  many  votes.  There  is  a  strong  probability  that  you  might  be 
elected :  nay  I  believe  the  chance  to  be  more  than  equal  in  your 
favour.  But  what  then.  The  contest  would  be  a  dreadful  one — 
every  effort  which  malice  &  low  cunning  united  could  bring 

^rom   the   Buchanan   Papers,   Historical    Society   of   Pennsylvania. 


72  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

to  bear  upon  ignorance  would  be  used  to  blacken  your  character. 
After  your  election  the  majority  of  the  Legislature  would  be 
opposed  to  you  &  every  endeavour  which  you  might  make  to 
improve  the  condition  of  the  State  would  be  thwarted.  You 
might  not  be  elected  &  then  the  hopes  of  your  political  prefer- 
ment either  in  the  general  or  State  government  which  your  friends 
have  been  cherishing  would  at  once  be  blasted. 

I  think  you  would  risque  too  much  by  entering  upon  the 
approaching  contest.  There  is  no  man  in  the  State  so  universally 
known  &  I  trust  I  may  add  without  the  imputation  of  flattery 
so  universally  respected  as  you  are  yourself  among  the  better 
classes  of  people  of  both  parties.  There  is  now  little  political 
prejudice  against  you  &  the  time  will  come  &  that  ere  long 
when  unless  something  unforeseen  should  occur  you  may  have 
any  office  which  either  the  votes  or  the  influence  of  the  people 
can  confer.  The  days  of  the  Findlays,  the  Hiesters,  the  Greggs, 
and  the  Shulzes  are  fast  passing  away  in  Pennsylvania. 

I  need  scarcely  add  if  your  friends  who  are  of  a  different 
opinion  from  me  should  prevail  upon  you  to  suffer  your  name 
to  be  used,  you  may  rest  assured  that  whatever  little  influence 
I  possess  shall  all  be  exerted  to  promote  your  election.  Should 
you  not  be  a  candidate  I  shall  feel  but  little  interest  in  the 
approaching  contest  &  shall  take  no  active  part. 

I  intend  (Deo  volente)  to  visit  the  North  this  summer. 
Have  you  any  idea  of  making  such  an  excursion. 

Please  to  present  my  best  respects  to  Mrs.  Sergeant  &  believe 
me  to  be  Your  sincere  friend 

The  Hon.  John  Sergeant.  James  Buchanan. 


1824. 
REMARKS,  JANUARY  5,  1824, 

ON  COSTS  IN  PATENT  CASES.1 

Mr.  Webster,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  whom 
was  recommitted  a  bill  concerning  costs  in  certain  cases,  reported 
the  same,  with  the  amendment  directed  by  the  instructions  of  the 
House,  viz :  the  substitution  of  one  hundred  dollars  in  place  of 
thirty  dollars,  as  the  minimum  of  damages  awarded  by  a  jury,  on 
which  costs  should  be  allowed. 


1  Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong,  l  Sess.  1823-1824,  I.  932-937. 


1824]  COSTS  IN  PATENT  CASES  73 

The  question  being  on  ordering  the  bill  to  be  engrossed  for 
a  third  reading  as  amended — 

Mr.  Webster  said,  that,  on  the  introduction  of  this  bill  to 
the  House,  a  few  days  ago,  he  had  stated  the  reason  for  proposing 
this  bill,  to  be,  that  though  the  law  limited  the  recovery  of  costs, 
in  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  in  general  cases,  to  suits  involv- 
ing an  amount  not  less  than  five  hundred  dollars,  there  was  a 
propriety  of  a  reduction  of  the  minimum  in  the  case  of  suits  by 
patentees,  because  it  was  supposed  to  be  matter  of  necessity  for 
the  patentee  to  sue  in  the  Federal  courts.  An  honorable  member 
had,  on  a  former  occasion,  suggested  that  the  State  courts  have 
jurisdiction  in  cases  of  this  description ;  but,  Mr.  W.  said,  if  the 
honorable  member  would  refer  to  the  law,  he  would  see  that  the 
act  of  Congress  which  creates  the  right  prescribes  the  remedy, 
and  provides  that  the  patentee  may  sue  for  it  in  the  circuit  courts 
of  the  United  States,  and  under  that  phraseology  it  was  presumed 
that  he  could  not  sue  elsewhere  than  in  those  courts. 

Mr.  Buchanan  had  objections  to  the  whole  bill.  What,  asked 
he,  is  the  law  in  the  case  of  patentees  as  it  now  stands  ?  A  most 
extraordinary  distinction  over  other  clients  is  made  in  their  favor, 
by  granting  them  judgment  for  three  times  the  amount  of 
damages  awarded  by  a  jury.  And  what  does  the  bill,  now  before 
the  House,  propose  to  do  in  favor  of  those  favored  individuals? 
To  superadd  costs  to  that  treble  verdict.  He  would  ask  whether 
such  a  measure  is  right;  whether  it  is  politic;  whether  it  is  just? 
He  thought  it  would  be  neither.  He  thought  it  far  better  to  let 
the  law  remain  as  it  now  stands.  What  had  been  the  history 
of  this  country  on  the  subject  of  patent  rights?  It  was  known 
to  all,  that  the  privilege  granted  by  the  patent  law,  had  been  exten- 
sively diffused  through  the  Union.  The  number  of  patents 
actually  issued  was  very  great;  the  number  pretended  to  be 
enjoyed  was  greater  still.  Impositions  were  multiplied.  In 
some  districts  of  the  Union  very  large  amounts  of  money  had 
been  collected  from  such  as  were  afraid  of  the  expense  of  a  law 
suit,  by  persons  claiming  to  have  a  patent  for  the  use  or  manu- 
facture of  certain  articles;  and,  after  they  had  gone  through  a 
whole  region,  thus  practicing  on  the  fears  or  ignorance  of  the 
inhabitants,  it  turned  out,  when  at  last  some  one  had  hardihood 
enough  to  contest  their  claim,  that  they  had  no  right  at  all.  This 
was  especially  the  case  in  those  States  which  were  of  extensive 
size,  and  the  distance  from  the  circuit  court  occasioned  formidable 
expense  in  resorting  to  trial.     The  claimant  brings  a  patent  in  his 


74  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

hand,  and  thus  has  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  validity  of  his 
right;  he  asks,  perhaps,  but  eight  or  ten  dollars  for  the  article; 
who  would  not  rather  pay  that  sum  than  run  the  risk  of  travelling 
one  or  two  hundred  miles,  to  the  circuit  court,  taking  witnesses 
with  him,  at  the  risk,  if  he  fails,  of  having  treble  damages  to  pay, 
and,  if  this  bill  passes,  costs  to  boot?  He  could  scarce  conceive 
of  a  measure  better  calculated  to  enable  designing  men  to  roam 
at  large  and  prey  upon  the  community.  He  thought,  for  his  part, 
that  the  law  was  already  hard  enough.  It  gave  already  enormous 
advantages  to  the  patentee  over  his  opponent ;  and,  if  costs  were 
to  be  superadded,  it  destroyed  all  prospect  of  successful  contest. 
Costs,  it  must  be  remembered,  are,  in  their  nature,  very  indeter- 
minate; their  amount  might  increase  to  such  a  sum  as  would 
ruin  a  man.  To  be  sure,  the  amendment  now  reported  makes  the 
bill  better,  so  far  as  it  goes ;  but,  even  under  the  bill,  as  amended, 
if  a  patentee  does  but  obtain  a  verdict  for  thirty-four  dollars,  he 
gets  his  costs  also  allowed  him,  because  treble  the  verdict  runs 
over  one  hundred  dollars,  and  brings  him  within  the  provisions 
of  the  bill.  Is  it  not  proper,  asked  Mr.  B.,  that  the  pretended 
patentee  shall  first  be  made  to  establish  his  right  before  his  oppon- 
ent is  threatened  with  treble  damages  and  costs?  He  thought 
the  law  should  at  least  be  left  unaltered;  for  himself,  he  felt 
more  disposed  to  curtail  than  to  extend  it. 

Mr.  Livermore  said,  that,  at  first,  he  had  viewed  the  object 
and  provisions  of  the  present  bill  as  proper  and  expedient;  but, 
on  further  reflection,  he  had  seen  reason  to  alter  that  opinion. 
He  thought,  however,  that  the  fault  of  the  system  did  not  lie 
so  much  in  that  feature  of  it  which  allowed  costs  where  damages 
over  one  hundred  dollars  were  obtained,  but  in  that  which  pre- 
viously allowed  the  verdict  of  the  jury  to  be  treble.  Why  should 
not  suitors  under  the  patent  law  be  placed  on  the  same  footing 
with  other  suitors?  The  alteration  he  wished  to  prevail  was  to 
repeal  the  treble  damages  and  allow  costs  in  all  cases.  But,  if 
it  should  be  deemed  proper  to  alter  that  provision,  then  he  thought 
that  costs  should  be  given,  rather  where  the  amount  was  under 
one  hundred  dollars  than  over  that  sum.  If  a  verdict  was 
obtained  for  ten  dollars  and  treble,  the  additional  twenty  dollars 
was  not  likely  to  be  enough  to  cover  the  costs.  He  wished  to 
see  the  whole  system  placed  under  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 
to  be  remodelled ;  he  would  also  give  the  State  courts  concurrent 
jurisdiction  with  those  of  the  United  States,  in  cases  under  the 
patent  law. 


1824]  COSTS  IN  PATENT  CASES  75 

Mr.  Webster,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Buchanan,  said,  that  he  felt 
no  particular  anxiety  on  the  subject  of  this  bill;  but,  having 
charge  of  the  bill,  it  seemed  proper  of  him  to  say  something  in 
its  defence.  The  House  would  recollect,  he  said,  that  this  whole 
case  of  patents  is  taken,  by  the  law,  out  of  the  hands  of  the  State 
courts,  the  jurisdiction  over  it  being  exclusively  reserved  to  the 
courts  of  the  United  States.  The  power  of  legislating  on  this 
subject  is  taken  from  the  States  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  And,  at  this  time  of  day,  and  before  this  Assembly,  Mr. 
W.  said  he  need  not  argue  that  the  right  of  the  inventor  is  a  high 
property ;  it  is  the  fruit  of  his  mind — it  belongs  to  him  more  than 
any  other  property — he  does  not  inherit  it — he  takes  it  by  no 
man's  gift — it  peculiarly  belongs  to  him,  and  he  ought  to  be  pro- 
tected in  the  enjoyment  of  it.  Precisely  as  the  arts  advance,  Mr. 
W.  went  on  to  say,  does  property  of  this  description  become 
valuable;  where  the  nicest  machinery  is  in  operation,  it  is  there 
that  the  improvements  of  inventors  are  in  the  highest  estimation — 
and  with  regard  to  those  branches  of  industry  which  have  been 
most  successful  in  this  country,  they  are  more  indebted  to  the 
ingenuity  of  inventors — to  the  power  of  mind  in  the  improvement 
of  machinery,  than  to  another  species  of  aid  which  they  have 
received  from  time  to  time.  It  is  to  encourage  these  inventions 
that  our  patent  laws  are  designed.  Is  it  any  answer  to  this 
argument  in  their  favor,  that  impositions  are  sometimes  practiced 
under  cover  of  these  laws?  Is  it  not  so  with  everything  else? 
With  regard  to  land,  for  example — are  there  not  many  persons 
pretending  to  have  titles  to  land  who  really  have  no  title?  Are 
there  not  as  many  speculations  in  landed  property  as  in  the  prop- 
erty of  mind?  And  shall  a  man  not  recover  his  right  to  land 
because  the  world  is  full  of  pretensions  of  right  to  land  where 
no  right  exists  ?  Surely  not.  It  was  said  by  an  honorable  mem- 
ber from  the  West  the  other  day,  that  the  people  in  his  part  of 
the  country  did  not  know  that  there  was  such  a  thing  as  a  patent 
office  in  the  country,  or  such  a  clause  in  the  Constitution  as 
that  which  relates  to  patent  rights.  Mr.  W.  said,  he  did  not 
know  that  on  this  account  the  House  should  accommodate  its 
legislation  precisely  to  that  state  of  information.  The  error 
was  not  in  the  Constitution  or  the  patent  laws,  but  in  the  want 
of  knowledge  among  the  people,  and  could  only  be  corrected 
by  its  diffusion.  In  restricting  the  patentee  to  the  recovery 
of  mere  judicial  damages,  Mr.  W.  continued,  justice  was  not 
done  to  him.  He  cannot  sue  for  all  his  right  at  once,  because 
the  violations  by  which  he  is  deprived  of  it  are  numerous.     Sup- 


76  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

pose  you  were  to  compel  a  man,  in  suing  for  land,  to  sue  for  it 
acre  by  acre — he  might  get  his  land,  indeed,  but  he  would  be 
ruined  by  the  process  of  recovery.  It  was  because  the  particular 
injury  in  the  case  of  the  violation  of  a  patent  right  was  small,  and 
the  expense  of  redressing  it  great,  that  the  provision  of  this  bill 
appeared  to  be  expedient.  A  redress  of  the  actual  injury  was 
not  sufficient  in  this  class  of  cases — if  the  penalty  for  the  violation 
was  not  sufficient  to  act  in  terrorem,  it  was  nothing.  Do  not 
all  penal  statutes,  Mr.  W.  asked,  go  on  the  ground,  that  damages 
are  not  only  to  be  given  to  indemnify  a  sufferer  in  a  particular 
case,  but  to  such  an  amount  as  to  deter  others  from  doing  the 
like?  The  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  be- 
sides, went  too  far.  If  the  damages  are  awarded  at  five  hundred 
dollars,  as  the  law  now  stands,  costs  are  allowed ;  whilst,  if  the 
damages  be  but  ten  dollars,  they  are  not  allowed.  What  justice 
was  there  in  this?  Where  an  action  is  brought  to  recover 
damages  for  the  use  of  an  invention  or  improvement  in  machinery, 
the  common  rule  is,  to  settle  the  amount  of  damages  at  the  sale 
price  of  the  article;  and  one  of  the  injurious  consequences  to 
defendants  themselves,  from  the  present  state  of  the  law,  is,  that 
the  juries  give  as  much  damages  as  will  carry  the  costs.  He 
could  assure  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  whatever  might 
be  said  in  other  parts  of  the  country,  there  was  no  right  which  an 
independent  jury  of  the  part  of  the  country  in  which  he  resided 
would  protect  with  more  certainty  or  vigilance,  than  the  patent 
right.  In  a  clear  case,  where  the  intention  to  deprive  the  inven- 
tor of  the  benefit  of  his  patent  was  obvious,  the  jury  would,  in 
almost  any  case,  give  damages  to  the  full  amount  of  five  hundred 
dollars.  This  bill,  therefore,  would,  in  this  respect,  be  beneficial 
to  the  defendants  themselves.  On  the  part  of  patentees,  there 
were  so  many  things  to  be  proved — for  instance,  that  the  invention 
is  new,  that  it  is  useful,  that  the  specification  is  accurate,  &c. — 
so  much  nicety  was  required,  as  to  throw  sufficient  obstacles  in  his 
way.  The  right  of  the  patentee,  Mr.  W.  said,  was  one  which  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  had  authorized  and  enjoined 
upon  Congress  to  protect;  the  party  injured  has  no  security  or 
resort  elsewhere,  but  to  the  courts  of  the  United  States ;  and  if 
it  was  reasonable  that  in  such  case  he  should  be  entitled  to 
recover  costs  where  the  damages  amount  to  one  hundred  dollars, 
then  this  bill  ought  to  pass ;   if  not,  it  ought  not  to  pass. 

Mr.  Buchanan,  in  reply,  observed,  that  no  one  could  be  more 
disposed  to  protect  the  just  rights  of  patentees  than  he  was;   nor 


1824]  COSTS  IN  PATENT  CASES  77 

could  any  person  concur  more  heartily  than  he  did  in  the  senti- 
ments of  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  respecting 
the  property  which  an  inventor  has  in  that  which  is  the  product 
of  his  own  genius ;  yet,  he  held  it  to  be  a  principle  in  legislation, 
while  guarding  the  rights  of  one  individual,  not  to  forget  or  to 
impair  those  of  the  rest  of  the  community.  A  wise  legislator  was 
bound  to  give  equal  protection  to  the  rights  of  all.  Ever  since  the 
passage  of  the  patent  law  under  the  Constitution,  the  courts  had 
been  open  to  patentees,  and  the  burden  of  proof  had  always  been 
cast  on  the  violator  of  his  patent.  He  must  prove  that  his 
act  was  no  violation  of  the  patent,  or  that  the  patent  was  in  itself 
invalid.  This  operated,  at  least  in  that  part  of  the  Union  which 
he  had  the  honor  to  represent,  as  a  great  hardship ;  yet  it  had  been 
cheerfully  submitted  to,  and  the  mere  production  of  the  patent 
was  allowed  to  be  presumptive  evidence  in  favor  of  the  patentee. 
But  the  law  went  farther ;  it  not  only  threw  the  burden  of  proof 
on  the  alleged  violator,  but  it  tripled  all  damages  against  him. 
And  now  it  was  proposed  to  go  farther  still,  and  to  allow  all 
costs  in  the  bargain,  wherever  these  damages  should,  when  tripled, 
amount  to  $100.  Had  he  rightly  heard  and  understood  the  gen- 
tleman from  Massachusetts  ?  Did  he  say  that,  in  that  part  of  the 
Union,  a  jury  would  always  give  a  verdict  of  $500?  If  such 
were  the  fact,  he  did  not  wonder  that  the  voice  of  the  community 
was  never  heard  against  the  provisions  of  the  law.  Who  would 
not  rather  pay  $10  than  run  the  risk  of  a  verdict  of  $500,  to  be 
tripled,  with  costs?  No  wonder  there  was  a  deep  silence.  The 
act,  as  amended  by  this  bill,  placed  the  community  at  the  mercy 
of  patentees.  To  oblige  a  man  to  go  two  or  three  hundred  miles 
to  court,  then  oblige  him  to  prove  the  patent  false,  and,  if  he 
fails,  to  make  him  pay  triple  damages,  and  costs  of  suit,  is  to 
place  an  array  of  obstacles  in  the  way  that  must,  in  most  cases, 
effectually  prevent  the  validity  of  patents  from  being  ever  con- 
tested. Such  ought  not  to  be  the  practical  operation  of  law  on 
this  subject.  If  the  law  is  left  as  it  now  stands,  will  the  patentee 
suffer  any  injury?  None  at  all.  Suppose  his  patent  is  a  good 
and  valid  one,  and  suppose  he  has  to  sue  in  order  to  establish 
that  fact,  will  not  such  a  suit  be,  in  effect,  a  benefit?  Can  he 
not  thenceforth  exhibit  with  his  patent  the  verdict  that  has  con- 
firmed it  ?  But,  if  this  bill  becomes  a  law,  it  will  go  forth  through- 
out the  country  to  let  loose  unprincipled  pretenders  to  prowl  upon 
the  community.  He  was  very  sorry  it  had  been  his  lot  to  differ 
in  opinion  from  the  honorable  member  from  Massachusetts,  for 


78  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

whose  opinions  no  man  cherished  a  more  profound  respect;  but 
he  had  been  reluctantly  urged  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  oppose  a  bill 
which  he  conceived  to  be  fraught  with  injury. 
Mr.  Clarke,  of  New  York,  then  moved 

That  the  bill,  with  the  amendment,  be  recommitted  to  the  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary,  with  instructions  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  repealing 
so  much  of  the  law  upon  the  subject  of  the  violation  of  patents,  as  provides 
for  the  recovery  of  triple  damages  in  suits  brought  by  patentees  for  such 
violation,  and  that  where  judgment  shall  pass  for  defendant,  or  the  plaintiff 
become  non-suit,  or  suffer  discontinuance,  the  defendant  shall  recover  double 
costs. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  bill  recommitted  accord- 
ingly. 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  15,  1824, 

ON  THE  ERECTION  OF  A  MONUMENT  TO  WASHINGTON  IN 
THE  CAPITOL.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  presented  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to 
inquire  in  what  manner  the  resolutions  of  Congress,  passed  on  the  24th 
December,  1799,  relative  to  the  erection  of  a  marble  monument  in  the  Capitol, 
at  the  City  of  Washington,  to  commemorate  the  great  events  of  the  military 
and  political  life  of  General  Washington,  may  be  best  accomplished,  and  that 
they  have  leave  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  the  House  would,  he  trusted,  excuse  him 
for  making  a  few  observations  in  explanation  of  the  motives  which 
had  impelled  him  to  offer  the  resolution  now  under  consideration. 
On  the  24th  December,  1799,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
resolved,  "  That  a  marble  monument  be  erected  by  the  United 
States,  in  the  Capitol,  at  the  City  of  Washington,  and  that  the 
family  of  General  Washington  be  requested  to  permit  his  body 
to  be  deposited  under  it ;  and  that  the  monument  be  so  designed 
as  to  commemorate  the  great  events  of  his  military  and  political 
life.'5'  They  also  resolved,  "  That  the  President  of  the  United 
States  be  requested  to  direct  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  to  be 
transmitted  to  Mrs.  Washington,  assuring  her  of  the  profound 
respect  Congress  will  ever  bear  to  her  person  and  character;  of 
their  condolence  on  the  late  afflicting  dispensations  of  Providence ; 
and  entreating  her  assent  to  the  interment  of  the  remains  of  Gen- 


Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong.  1  Sess.  1823-1824,  1044-1048. 


1824]  MONUMENT  TO  WASHINGTON  79 

eral  George  Washington  in  the  manner  expressed  in  the  first 
resolution."  The  then  President  of  the  United  States  transmitted 
these  resolutions  to  Mrs.  Washington,  who,  on  the  31st  Decem- 
ber, 1799,  returned  an  answer,  which  I  will  take  leave  to  read  to 

the  House : 

Mount  Vernon,  Dec.  31,  1799. 

Sir:  While  I  feel  with  keenest  anguish,  the  late  dispensation  of  Divine 
Providence,  I  cannot  be  insensible  to  the  mournful  tributes  of  respect  and 
veneration  which  are  paid  to  the  memory  of  my  dear  deceased  husband; 
and,  as  his  best  services  and  most  anxious  wishes  were  always  devoted  to 
the  welfare  and  happiness  of  his  country,  to  know  that  they  were  truly 
appreciated,  and  gratefully  remembered,  affords  no  inconsiderable  consolation. 

Taught  by  that  great  example  which  I  have  so  long  had  before  me, 
never  to  oppose  my  private  wishes  to  the  public  will,  I  must  consent  to 
the  request  made  by  Congress,  which  you  have  had  the  goodness  to  transmit 
to  me;  and  in  doing  this  I  need  not,  I  cannot  say  what  a  sacrifice  of 
individual  feeling  I  make  to  a  sense  of  public  duty. 

With  grateful  acknowledgments,  and  unfeigned  thanks,  for  the  personal 
respect,  and  evidences  of  condolence,  expressed  by  Congress,  and  yourself. 

I  remain,  very  respectfully, 

Sir,  your  most  obed't  humble  servant, 

Martha  Washington. 

During  the  same  session  of  Congress,  a  bill  passed  the  House 
of  Representatives  for  erecting  a  mausoleum  for  George  Wash- 
ington in  the  City  of  Washington.  It  was  postponed  in  the 
Senate  until  the  next  session.  Several  attempts  have  since  been 
made  in  Congress  to  redeem  the  plighted  faith  of  the  nation,  but 
they  have  all  proved  unavailing.  The  man  who  was  emphatically 
first  in  war,  first  in  peace,  and  first  in  the  hearts  of  his  country- 
men, has  been  sleeping  with  his  fathers  for  almost  a  quarter  of  a 
century,  and  his  mortal  remains  have  yet  been  unhonored  by  that 
people,  who,  with  justice,  call  him  the  father  of  their  country. 

It  is  difficult  to  determine,  whether  this  neglect  be  more 
impolitic  or  ungrateful.  Every  wise  nation  has  paid  honors  to 
the  memory  of  the  men  who  have  been  the  saviours  of  their  coun- 
try. Sculpture  and  painting  have  vied  with  each  other,  in  trans- , 
mitting  their  images  and  the  memory  of  their  deeds  to  the  remotest 
generations.  By  these  means,  the  holy  fire  of  virtuous  emulation 
has  been  kindled  in  the  bosoms  of  the  youth  of  succeeding  ages. 

Our  country  has  produced  a  General,  whose  prudence  and 
perseverance,  whose  courage  and  military  skill,  conquered  our 
independence,  against  fearful  odds,  from  the  most  powerful 
nation  on  earth;  and  what  is  still  more  wonderful,  was  never 
intoxicated  by  the  illusions  of  military  glory.     Our  country  has 


80  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

given  birth  to  a  statesman,  who  was  chiefly  instrumental  in  con- 
verting the  chaos  of  the  old  Confederation,  into  the  most  perfect 
fabric  of  human  wisdom — the  Federal  Constitution;  and  whose 
conduct,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  was  characterized 
by  such  wisdom  and  virtue,  that,  after  the  strictest  examination, 
it  is  now  admitted  to  be  the  most  proper  guide,  to  direct  us  in 
the  path  which  leads  to  the  nation's  prosperity  and  glory.  In 
short,  our  country  has  produced  a  Washington ;  he  has  been  dead 
for  four  and  twenty  years,  and  we  have  erected  no  monument  on 
which  to  record  his  virtues,  and  our  gratitude. 

Mr.  B.  said,  that  Congress,  by  neglecting,  for  so  long  a 
period,  to  accomplish  the  object  of  the  resolutions,  had  been  sub- 
jected to  the  imputation  of  perfidy,  as  well  as  ingratitude.  We 
made  a  solemn  promise  to  the  widowed  partner  of  Washington, 
and  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  by  a  legislative  act,  that 
we  would  erect  a  monument  to  his  memory.  That  distinguished 
lady  has  long  slumbered  with  him  in  the  grave,  and  this  pledge 
has  never  yet  been  redeemed.  Although  his  mortal  remains, 
have,  at  our  request,  and  by  her  consent,  become  the  property  of 
the  public,  yet  they  still  lie  neglected.  Indeed,  I  have  been  credi- 
bly informed,  that  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  steal  them  away 
from  his  country,  which  had  almost  proved  successful. 

Do  we,  Mr.  Speaker,  consider  it  a  matter  of  necessity,  in 
all  respects,  to  preserve  the  public  faith  inviolate?  And  shall 
we  prove  faithless  only  in  what  concerns  the  memory  of  Wash- 
ington? The  danger  of  the  precedent,  the  argument  so  often 
repeated  in  this  House,  against  the  adoption  of  measures,  will,  in 
this  case,  be  unavailing.  The  long  list  of  ages,  which  preceded 
the  birth  of  Washington,  had  never  presented  a  human  character 
so  perfect;  and  there  is  but  a  bare  possibility  that  future  gener- 
ations will  produce  his  equal. 

Mr.  B.  hoped  the  resolution  would  pass  unanimously. 

(Here  Mr.  Cary,  of  Georgia,  made  some  remarks,  in  which 
he  argued  that  the  practice  of  erecting  monuments  to  illustrious 
men  originated  in  times  before  the  light  of  reason  had  penetrated 
the  darkness  of  society;  that  it  represented  a  spirit  of  vanity, 
unsuited  to  America;  and  that  the  monument  to  Washington 
should  be  in  the  bosoms  of  the  people. ) 

Mr.  Buchanan  observed,  in  reply,  that  when  he  brought  for- 
ward the  resolution  he  had  the  honor  to  present  to  the  House, 
he  did  not  suppose  that  any  gentleman  would  feel  it  to  be  his 
duty  to  oppose  its  adoption.     He  differed  wholly  from  the  honor- 


1824]  DUTY  ON  COTTON  BAGGING  81 

able  gentleman  from  Georgia.  That  gentleman  maintained  that 
it  was  not  proper  for  a  Republic,  by  monumental  marble,  to  excite 
its  citizens  to  virtuous  deeds  by  publicly  honoring  the  memory  of 
those  who  had  been  the  benefactors  of  their  country.  He,  on  the 
contrary,  thought  that  in  the  case  of  Republics  there  was  in  the 
practice  a  peculiar  and  special  propriety.  Such  monuments  had, 
in  all  ages  and  countries,  exerted  a  powerful  effect  in  inciting  men 
to  patriotic  virtue;  our  Government  rests,  its  very  foundations 
are  laid,  on  that  virtue;  and  it  therefore  seemed  in  a  peculiar 
manner  adapted  to  the  circumstances  of  this  Republic.  It  was, 
too,  a  practice  which  had  been  already  sanctioned  by  the  example 
of  some  of  the  most  respectable  States  in  the  Union.  But  it  was 
now  too  late  to  talk  about  the  policy  of  the  measure.  Is  not,  asked 
Mr.  B.,  the  faith  of  the  nation  pledged?  Has  not  the  measure 
been  publicly  resolved  upon  by  both  Houses  of  Congress?  Has 
it  not  received  the  sanction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  ? 
Is  the  country  to  promise  to-day,  and  violate  its  promise  to- 
morrow? The  faith  of  the  Government,  pledged  twenty-five 
years  since,  to  the  family  of  the  deceased,  and  to  the  American 
people,  has  never,  to  this  day,  been  redeemed.  Shall  we  hold 
all  our  contracts  inviolable  but  this?  As  to  the  precedent,  that 
question  has  already  been  settled;  the  pledge  has  been  given. 
And  were  gentlemen  alarmed  at  the  danger  of  such  a  precedent? 
They  might  calm  their  apprehensions ;  there  was  not  the  remotest 
danger  of  such  another  case  recurring.  The  world,  in  its  long 
course  of  days,  had  never  beheld  such  a  man  before ;  and,  in  all 
the  march  of  time,  there  was  little  probability  of  the  world's  ever 
seeing  such  another;  and  for  himself,  Mr.  B.  said,  he  felt  so 
deeply  the  obligation  to  redeem  the  pledged  promise  of  the  nation, 
that,  though  little  accustomed  to  make  such  requests,  he  must 
ask  that  the  yeas  and  nays  might  be  recorded. 

The  resolution  was  ordered  to  lie  on  the  table,  by  a  vote  of 
97  to  67. 


REMARKS,    FEBRUARY  16,  17,  19,  AND  26,   1824, 

ON  A   PROPOSED  DUTY  OF  SIX  CENTS  A  YARD  ON  IMPORTED 
COTTON  BAGGING.1 

[Feb.  16.]     Mr.  Buchanan  said  that  much  embarrassment 
had  arisen  from  uncertainty  in  the  amount  per  cent,  to  which 

1  Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong.  1  Sess.  1823-1824,  I.  1546,  1547,  1565,  1566, 
1590,  1678. 
6 


82  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

the  bill  contemplated  to  raise  the  present  duty  on  bagging.  Some 
gentlemen  stated  it  to  be  25  per  cent.,  others  30,  others  80,  others, 
again,  over  100.  He  said  he  was  favorable  to  the  cause  of  manu- 
factures, and  thought  it  ought  to  be  protected ;  but  not  by  going 
faster  than  the  growth  of  manufactures  would  warrant.  He 
thought,  as  the  farmers  of  the  West  had  no  market  for  their  grain, 
that  their  hemp  ought  to  be  brought  into  fair  competition  with 
that  of  foreigners;  this  was  as  far  as  he  would  go.  He  was 
willing,  on  the  article  now  under  consideration,  to  vote  for  a  duty 
of  10  instead  of  20  per  cent,  additional.  He  was  informed  that 
4^2  cents  per  square  yard  would  be  equal  to  a  total  duty  of  30 
per  cent.,  and  this  he  should  move,  if  the  present  duty  was  not 
carried. 


Mr.  Buchanan  replied  to  Mr.  Tod,  and  said  he  was  sorry  the 
gentleman  was  willing  to  risk,  as  he  said,  the  whole  bill  on  such 
a  desperate  hazard  as  the  passing  of  this  duty — a  duty,  he  was 
prepared  to  show,  greater  than  that  on  any  other  article  in  the 
whole  bill.  He  approved  the  duty  on  hemp,  and  was  willing  to 
make  that  on  bagging  equal  to  it.  He  thought  the  proposed  duty 
out  of  proportion,  and  much  greater  than  needful.  He  censured 
the  implied  threats  of  resistance  thrown  out  by  a  gentleman  from 
Georgia.  Such  language  tended  to  disunion,  and  ought  to  be 
repressed.1  Yet  he  believed  that  Congress  might  go  so  far  (in 
proposing,  for  instance,  a  direct  land  tax  for  the  support  of 
manufactures)  that  the  people  would  rise  in  their  majesty,  and 
overwhelm  the  act,  factories,  and  all.  By  going  too  far,  gentle- 
men only  incurred  the  danger  of  reaction. 


[Feb.  17.]  Mr.  Buchanan  disclaimed  the  principles  ad- 
vanced by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,2  (Mr.  Mercer,)  he  was 
in  favor  of  the  general  system  proposed  by  the  bill — it  was  the 
settled  policy  of  this  country — we  had  advanced  from  one  tariff 
to  another  on  that  principle,  and  we  now  had  a  third,  but  we 


1  Mr.  Cobb,  of  Georgia,  in  opposing  the  proposed  duty,  "  ended,  by  inti- 
mating, that,  although  the  people  of  the  South  were  orderly  and  submissive 
to  the  authority  of  their  Government,  there  might  be  a  point,  to  which,  if 
prohibitions  should  be  pushed,  they  would  be  resisted."  (Annals  of  Congress, 
18  Cong.  1  Sess.  I.  1544.) 

2  That  the  bill  was  opposed  at  least  to  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution. 


1824]  DUTY  ON  COTTON  BAGGING  83 

should  advance  with  cautious  steps,  and  not  injure  the  kindred 
interests  of  agriculture  and  commerce.  He  entirely  agreed  with 
the  honorable  Speaker  in  the  sentiments  avowed  in  the  close  of 
his  speech;  there  must  be  a  system  of  mutual  concession — we 
must  agree  to  give  and  take.  He  was  equally  opposed  to  both 
extremes  proposed ;  one  party  said,  strike  out  the  duty  altogether ; 
to  this  he  could  not  consent — he  would  indeed  rejoice  to  see  trade 
perfectly  unshackled;  but,  while  other  countries  surrounded  it 
with  protecting  restrictions,  we  must  do  so  too  in  self-defence. 
Another  party  were  for  raising  the  duty  from  twenty  to  forty 
per  cent. ;  he  thought  this  too  much ;  we  must  have  some  regard 
to  revenue.  He  was  for  pursuing  a  middle  course,  which,  though 
it  might  not  at  once  drive  the  Dundee  manufacturer  out  of  the 
market,  would  give  life  and  vigor  to  our  own  factories,  and  enable 
them  to  compete  with  him. 

Mr.  B.  then  moved  to  strike  out  6,  and  insert  2^  cents  per 
square  yard.  This  he  hoped  would  meet  the  wishes  of  both 
parties :  as  to  the  general  discussion  of  the  principles  of  the  bill, 
he  hoped  it  would  not  be  gone  into ;  he  had  derived  more  instruc- 
tion from  hearing  the  details  of  the  bill  discussed  thus  far,  than 
he  should  have  done  from  listening  for  a  month  to  long  sermons 
on  political  economy. 

Mr.  Cambreleng  observed,  in  reply,  that  he  had  no  inclina- 
tion to  deliver  what  the  honorable  gentleman  was  pleased  to  call 
a  sermon  on  political  economy;  but  he  must  say,  that  he  had 
listened  to  many  a  long  speech  in  the  present  discussion,  which 
was  not  on  the  bill  at  all;  for,  if  he  understood  the  bill,  and 
the  honorable  Speaker  and  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
understood  it,  the  gentleman  last  up  certainly  did  not  under- 
stand it. 

Mr.  Brent  expressed  the  idea  that  the  whole  bill,  if  intended 
not  for  protection,  but  for  revenue,  was  out  of  order;  for  then 
it  could  not  properly  be  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Manufac- 
tures, but  ought  to  have  come  from  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means.  If  the  question  on  his  motion  to  strike  out  could  not 
be  put,  a  question  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  itself  must  be  equally 
out  of  order. 

Mr.  Buchanan  then  rose  and  said,  that,  in  compliance  with 
the  request  of  his  friends,  rather  than  the  dictates  of  his  own 
judgment,  he  consented  to  withdraw  his  amendment. 


84  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

[Feb.  19.]  Mr.  Buchanan  thought  this  a  most  extraordi- 
nary resolution.1  After  the  bill  had  been  almost  a  month  under 
discussion,  when  the  measure  had  been  examined  by  every  news- 
paper in  the  country  for  years  past,  and  the  whole  nation  had 
taken  sides  on  the  question,  that  Congress  should  formally  ask 
for  information  as  to  what  would  be  the  operation  of  the  bill !  He 
thought  gentlemen  were  competent  to  obtain  this  information 
for  themselves,  or  why  were  they  sent  here?  The  gentleman 
from  Louisiana  had  now  come  fairly  out,  and  avowed  his  willing- 
ness for  delay;  but  it  was  delay  that  ruined  the  bill  last  session, 
and  delay  would  destroy  it  now.  The  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
of  Ways  and  Means  had  expressed  his  opinion — the  members  of 
that  Committee  were  all  in  the  House:  Why  send  them  out  to 
make  a  long  report,  and  then  occupy  as  much  time  afterwards  as 
before  it?  It  was  unreasonable  to  find  fault  with  the  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  of  Manufactures,  for  not  laying  a  general  state- 
ment before  the  House ;  he  had  not  been  called  on  to  do  so — the 
debate  having  thus  far  been  almost  confined  to  cotton  bagging. 
When  necessary,  he  doubted  not  that  gentleman  was  fully  pre- 
pared to  show  what  would  be  the  operation  of  the  whole  bill,  and 
of  all  its  parts. 


[Feb.  26.]  Mr.  Buchanan  then  renewed  his  motion  to 
change  the  duty  [on  cotton  bagging]  from  six  cents  to  four-and- 
a-half  cents  per  square  yard,  which  was  agreed  to — ayes  119. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  27,  1824, 

ON   A    PROPOSED    DUTY    OF   TWENTY-FIVE    CENTS    PER    BUSHEL 
ON    WHEAT.' 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  spoke  in  favor  of  the  duty. 
Let  the  Canadian  grain  growers  go  down  their  own  river.  While 
our  own  farmers  are  struggling  for  a  market,  shall  we  bring 
strangers  into  that  market  on  a  cheaper  footing  than  they  could 
otherwise  get  there,  by  the  use  of  our  facilities  ?  Europe  is  now 
in  profound  peace;    she  can  grow  wheat  enough  for  her  own 


1  A  resolution  to  direct  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  to  examine 
and  report  what  would  be  the  effect  of  the  bill  on  the  revenues.  (Annals 
of  Congress,  18  Cong.  1  Sess.  I.  1586.) 

2  Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong.  1  Sess.  1823-1824,  I.  1696. 


1824]  DUTY  ON  BAR  IRON  85 

consumption,  and  that  of  her  dependencies;  she  may  soon  go 
farther,  and  seek  to  get  the  supplying  of  us.  Let  us  anticipate 
such  an  idea,  and  meet  them  with  a  duty  at  our  threshold. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  28,  1824, 

ON  THE  PROPOSED  DUTY  ON  BAR  IRON.1 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  followed  Mr.  Fuller.  He 
said,  that  the  duty  upon  bar  iron,  according  to  the  existing  tariff, 
was  fifteen  dollars  per  ton.  This  bill  proposes  to  increase  it  to 
$22.50 — and  the  question  for  the  Committee  to  decide,  was  the 
policy  of  this  measure. 

It  has  been  contended,  said  Mr.  B.,  by  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts, (Mr.  Fuller,)  that  bar  iron  might  be  considered  as 
almost  a  raw  material.  If  that  gentleman  intended  to  convey  the 
idea,  that  the  manufacture  of  this  article  requires  but  little  capital, 
he  is  entirely  mistaken.  The  man  who  expects  to  prosecute  it 
with  success,  ought  not  only  to  possess  a  considerable  active  capi- 
tal, but  a  large  body  of  land  covered  with  timber.  Before  the 
ore  is  manufactured  into  bar  iron,  it  undergoes  two  distinct  pro- 
cesses, at  different  factories.  At  the  furnace  it  is  converted  into 
pig  metal,  which,  in  the  forge,  is  manufactured  into  bar  iron. 
These  factories  are  generally  distinct,  and  each  of  them  requires 
a  large  capital.  If,  therefore,  you  suffer  the  manufactories  of 
iron  to  be  destroyed,  and  the  capital  invested  in  them  to  be 
diverted  into  other  channels,  it  will  be  difficult  to  restore  them, 
when  the  necessities  of  the  country  may  demand  such  a  measure. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Fuller)  has  alleged 
that  the  manufacturers  of  iron,  in  Pennsylvania,  are  now  in  a 
prosperous  condition.  It  is  true,  said  Mr.  B.,  that  a  few  of  the 
ironmasters,  who  had  acquired  sufficient  wealth  to  survive  the 
general  wreck  in  which  a  large  proportion  of  that  class  of  our 
citizens  has  been  involved,  have  been  able  to  support  themselves. 
This,  however,  has  been  the  case  only  with  respect  to  those  who 
reside  at  some  distance  from  the  seacoast,  and  in  a  neighborhood 
in  which  there  is  a  demand  for  all  the  iron  they  can  manufacture. 
Foreign  iron,  before  it  can  come  into  competition  with  theirs, 
must,  in  addition  to  the  present  duty,  pay  the  expense  of  transpor- 
tation into  the  country.     Such  individuals,  by  the  ruin  of  rival 

1  Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong.  1  Sess.  1824,  II.  1709-1712. 


86  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

manufacturers,  and  by  the  consequent  destruction  of  domestic 
competition  within  their  sphere,  have  become  the  monopolists 
of  their  neighboring  markets.  In  this  manner,  the  farmer  is  com- 
pelled to  pay  a  much  greater  price  for  his  iron,  than  he  would  be 
obliged  to  give,  if  the  protecting  power  of  the  Government  would 
recall  into  existence  those  rival  manufactories,  which  have  sunk 
under  its  neglect.  What,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  the  condition  of  those 
manufacturers  residing  in  the  interior,  who  have  no  market  at 
home,  but  must  depend  upon  that  of  the  Atlantic  cities?  As  it 
regards  them,  the  picture  is  reversed.  In  addition  to  the  first 
cost  of  their  iron,  they  are  compelled  to  incur  the  expense  of  trans- 
porting it  to  a  market  where  it  comes  into  competition  with  that 
from  Russia  and  Sweden.  Such  ironmasters,  under  the  present 
tariff,  must  inevitably  be  ruined,  if  they  should  continue  in  the 
business.  They  would  lose  upon  every  ton  of  iron  which  they 
manufacture.  The  consequence  has  been,  that  most  of  them,  in 
this  situation,  have  been  compelled  to  stop. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  the  traveller,  if  he  had  gone  into  the  interior 
and  mountainous  districts  of  Pennsylvania,  but  a  few  years  ago, 
would  have  found  a  great  number  of  furnaces  and  forges  in  active 
operation.  Their  owners  were  not  only  prosperous  themselves, 
but  they  spread  prosperity  around  them.  These  manufactories 
presented  the  best  and  surest  market  to  the  neighboring  country, 
for  the  products  of  agriculture.  Thus,  they  diffused  wealth 
among  the  people,  money  circulated  freely,  and  the  manufacturer 
and  the  farmer  were  equally  benefited. 

The  present  aspect  of  those  districts  presents  a  melancholy 
contrast  to  that  which  I  have  just  described.  It  is  a  just  com- 
ment upon  the  policy  of  that  country  which  will  not  afford  a 
reasonable  protection  to  its  own  domestic  industry,  and  thereby 
gives  to  foreigners  a  decided  preference  in  its  markets.  Although 
that  portion  of  Pennsylvania  abounds  with  ore,  with  wood,  and 
with  water  power,  yet  its  manufactories  generally  have  sunk  into 
ruin,  and  exist  only  as  standing  monuments  of  the  false  policy 
of  the  Government.  The  manufacturers  and  their  laborers  have 
both  been  thrown  out  of  employment,  and  the  neighboring  farmer 
is  without  a  market. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  the  records  of  your  Government  prove,  con- 
clusively, that  foreign  iron  is  rapidly  driving  domestic  competition 
out  of  the  market.  In  the  year  1819,  16,241  tons  of  foreign 
hammered  iron  were  imported.  In  the  year  1822,  it  had  increased 
to  26,508  tons.     What  it  was  during  the  last  year,  I  have  not  been 


1824]  DUTY  ON  BAR  IRON  87 

able  to  ascertain  with  precision,  but  I  am  informed,  that  it  has 
been  regularly  progressing  in  the  same  proportion.  Thus,  we 
perceive,  that,  in  the  short  space  of  three  years,  the  increase  has 
been  more  than  ten  thousand  tons. 

Can  any  statesman,  said  Mr.  B.,  regard  this  process  with 
indifference  ?  Is  it  the  policy  of  this  nation  to  surfer  the  manufac- 
ture of  iron  to  be  destroyed  ?  Can  any  gentleman  for  a  moment 
sanction  such  an  opinion?  No  nation  can  be  perfectly  indepen- 
dent, which  depends  upon  foreign  countries  for  its  supply  of  iron. 
It  is  an  article  equally  necessary  in  peace  and  in  war.  Without 
a  plentiful  supply  of  it,  we  cannot  provide  for  the  common  de- 
fence. Can  we  so  soon  have  forgotten  the  lesson  which  experi- 
ence taught  us,  during  the  late  war  with  Great  Britain?  Our 
foreign  supply  was  then  cut  off,  and  we  could  not  manufacture 
in  sufficient  quantities  for  the  increased  domestic  demand.  The 
price  of  the  article  became  extravagant,  and  both  the  Government 
and  the  agriculturist  were  compelled  to  pay  double  the  sum  for 
which  they  might  have  purchased  it,  had  its  manufacture,  before 
that  period,  been  encouraged  by  proper  protecting  duties.  We 
cannot  now  always  expect  to  remain  at  peace;  and  the  only  means 
of  securing  to  ourselves,  in  time  of  war,  an  abundant  supply  of 
this  necessary  article,  at  a  cheap  rate,  is  to  encourage  its  manu- 
facture, whilst  we  are  on  terms  of  friendship  with  all  nations. 

But  after  all,  Mr.  Chairman,  what  do  we  ask  by  this  bill 
for  the  manufacturers  of  iron?  Not  a  prohibitory  duty,  as  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Fuller)  seems  to  suppose, 
which  will  exclude  foreign  iron  from  our  market.  We  wish  only 
to  infuse  into  our  own  manufactures  sufficient  vigor  to  enable 
them  to  struggle  against  foreign  competition.  Protection,  not 
prohibition,  is  our  object.  The  revenue  which  the  country  at 
present  derives  from  foreign  iron  will,  for  several  years  at  least, 
be  increased  by  the  proposed  additional  duty;  and  at  the  same 
time  a  most  important  branch  of  our  domestic  industry  will  be 
gradually  cherished.  For  the  proof  of  this  assertion,  I  refer 
to  the  opinion  advanced  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  his 
annual  report,  during  the  last  session,  on  the  state  of  the  finances. 
In  it  he  distinctly  declares  "  that  the  duties  upon  glass  and  paper, 
upon  iron  and  lead,  and  upon  all  articles  composed  of  the  two 
latter  materials,  may  be  increased,"  "  with  a  view  to  the  augmen- 
tation of  the  revenue."  His  report  during  the  present  session 
shows  that  he  still  entertains  the  same  opinion. 

Mr.  B.  said,  revenue  was  at  this  time  an  important  consid- 


88  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

eration.  In  the  imposition  of  new  duties,  we  should  not  lose 
sight  of  the  Treasury.  Notwithstanding  the  siren  notes  which 
we  have  heard  on  this  floor  concerning  the  prosperous  condition 
of  our  revenue,  we  know  that  we  are  in  debt  about  ninety  millions 
of  dollars ;  a  great  part  of  which  will  become  payable  before  our 
ordinary  resources  will  enable  us  to  extinguish  it.  Mr.  B.  said 
it  was  his  opinion  that,  should  this  bill  pass,  with  a  very  few 
amendments,  it  would  for  some  years  considerably  increase  the 
revenue  of  the  country,  and  assist  in  enabling  us  to  discharge 
our  national  debt.  The  proper  occasion,  however,  has  not  yet 
arrived  for  such  a  general  investigation. 

As  it  regards  the  article  of  iron,  we  may  fairly  infer,  from 
the  history  of  its  importation,  that  the  proposed  addition 
to  the  duty  will  increase  the  revenue.  In  determining 
this  question,  we  should  inquire  whether  the  foreign  im- 
portation is  increasing  under  the  existing  tariff;  and  if 
so,  whether  slowly  or  rapidly.  According  to  this  advance, 
we  may  proportion  the  additional  duty,  always  keeping  within 
reasonable  limits.  We  find  that  in  three  years  the  increase  has 
been  more  than  ten  thousand  tons.  Under  the  operation  of  this 
bill,  the  revenue  will  be  augmented  until  the  quantity  imported 
shall  be  less  by  one-third  than  it  is  at  present.  No  person 
acquainted  with  the  condition  of  the  iron  manufactories  of  the 
country  can  suppose  that  they  will  be  able  to  produce  this  effect 
for  many  years  to  come  under  an  additional  duty  of  only  $7.50 
per  ton.  It  will,  however,  afford  them  that  gradual  protection 
which  is  in  accordance  with  the  settled  policy  of  this  nation :  a 
policy  which,  whilst  it  encourages  domestic  manufactures,  never 
loses  sight  of  the  great  interests  of  agriculture  and  commerce. 

Mr.  B.  said  there  was  no  article  from  the  importation  of 
which  a  duty  might  be  more  fairly  derived  than  iron.  It  would 
not  in  any  degree  be  partial  in  its  operation.  Its  use  was  uni- 
versal, and  all  parts  of  the  Union  would,  therefore,  contribute 
their  fair  proportion.  Mr.  B.  concluded  by  observing  that  there 
was  no  item  in  the  bill  which  had  fairer  claims  to  be  retained 
than  the  article  of  iron. 


1824]  DUTIES  ON  WOOLLENS  AND  HEMP  89 

REMARKS,    MARCH    4,    1824, 

ON  THE  DUTY  ON  WOOLLEN  GOODS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  supported  the  amendment, 
as  a  measure  proper  in  itself,  and  calculated  to  promote  a  spirit 
of  mutual  conciliation.  The  present  duty  on  woollen  goods  is 
twenty-five  per  cent,  ad  valorem — the  bill  would  raise  it  to  thirty- 
three  and  a  third.  The  minimum  proposed  by  the  amendment  is 
forty  cents  per  square  yard;  a  yard  of  coarse  baize  costs  eight 
pence  sterling;  the  ad  valorem  duty,  as  amended,  is  equal  to 
eighty  per  cent. ;  without  the  amendment,  it  will  amount  to 
one  hundred  and  thirty  per  cent.  He  thought  we  were  not  yet 
ready  for  a  prohibitory  duty  on  coarse  woollens ;  to  which  article 
the  arguments  from  coarse  cottons  did  not  apply,  because  cotton 
was  abundant — wool  was  not.  The  amount  imported  last  year 
was  one  million  six  hundred  thousand  pounds — worth  three  hun- 
dred and  forty  thousand  dollars.  By  going  too  rapidly,  in  press- 
ing the  system,  we  shall  injure  both  the  consumer  and  the  manu- 
facturer. If  the  raw  material  was  abundant,  he  should  oppose 
any  reduction  of  the  minimum ;  but  at  present  he  should  advocate 
the  amendment. 


REMARKS,  MARCH  23,  1824, 

ON  A  MOTION  TO  REDUCE  THE  PROPOSED  DUTY  ON  HEMP  FROM  TWO 
CENTS  A  POUND  TO  ONE  AND  ONE-HALF  CENTS.2 

The  debate  was  then  resumed  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  who  advo- 
cated the  duty  proposed  in  the  bill,  and  opposed  the  amendment, 
as  did  also  Mr.  Tod  and  Mr.  Speaker  Clay.  It  was  supported  by 
Messrs.  Webster,  Mercer,  P.  P.  Barbour,  Foot  of  Connecticut, 
Cambreleng,  and  McKim.  The  debate  was  continued  in  a  series 
of  speeches,  abounding  with  fact  and  argument,  and  occasionally 
enlivened  with  attack  and  retort,  in  which  humor  was  chastened 
by  decorum. 

The  following  are  Mr.  Buchanan's  remarks  in  reply  to  Mr. 
Reed: 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  that,  in  rising  to  reply  to  the  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts,  (Mr.  Reed,)  he  did  not  intend  to  follow  him 


1  Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong.  I  Sess.  1824,  II.  1742. 

2  Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong.  1  Sess.  1824,  II.  1888-1893. 


90  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

through  the  excursive  range  which  he  had  taken.  Judging  from 
the  speech  alone,  a  stranger  to  the  question  might  be  induced 
to  believe  that  the  measure  under  discussion  was  one,  the  adoption 
of  which  would,  in  its  consequences,  destroy  the  commerce  and 
navigation  of  the  country,  and  endanger  the  existence  of  its  navy. 
Mr.  B.  said  that,  able  and  ingenious  as  had  been  the  speech  of  the 
gentleman,  he  must  be  permitted  to  say  that  a  large  proportion 
of  it  had  but  a  very  remote  application  to  the  subject. 

What,  said  Mr.  B.,  is  the  real  question  now  under  discussion? 
By  the  existing  tariff  of  1816,  the  duty  upon  the  importation 
of  foreign  hemp  is  150  cents  upon  each  112  lbs.  The  present 
bill  proposes  to  increase  that  duty,  which  is  now  equal  to  134  cents 
on  the  100  lbs.,  and  to  make  it  200  cents  upon  each  100  lbs.  And 
yet  this  comparatively  unimportant  measure  has  given  birth  to  all 
the  fearful  predictions  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts. 

Mr.  B.  said,  if  there  is  a  single  clause  in  the  bill  in  perfect 
accordance  with  the  principles  and  the  policy  by  which  its  friends 
profess  to  be  guided,  it  is  the  one  now  under  discussion.  If  it 
cannot  be  supported,  we  may  begin  to  despair  of  the  passage 
of  the  bill  through  this  House. 

Mr.  B.  said  it  would  conduce  to  a  proper  understanding  of 
the  subject,  and,  in  his  opinion,  at  once  demolish  the  greater 
part  of  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  to 
ascertain  and  fix  with  precision  the  nature  of  the  question  under 
discussion.  For  this  purpose,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  dis- 
cover the  ad  valorem  duty  to  which  the  present  specific  duty 
would  be  equal.  In  doing  so,  I  shall  refer  to  the  authentic  official 
documents  prepared  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  under  the 
authority  of  Mr.  Sanford's  law,  and  not  to  a  private  letter,  such 
as  that  upon  which  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  ( Mr.  Web- 
ster) has  founded  his  calculations.  The  writer  of  that  letter,  it 
is  fair  to  presume,  must  have  felt  a  deep  interest  in  this  subject, 
otherwise  he  would  not  have  taken  the  trouble  of  supplying  the 
gentleman  with  information.  When  we  reflect  that  self-interest 
is  the  most  fruitful  source  of  prejudice,  and  that,  if  the  letter 
be  correct,  then  are  the  official  Treasury  reports  altogether  de- 
ceptive, I  take  it  for  granted  that  the  Committee  will  have  but 
little  difficulty  in  deciding  which  is  entitled  to  the  preference. 

From  these  reports,  it  appears  that  the  average  cost  of  foreign 
hemp  in  the  ports  from  which  it  was  exported,  must  have  been  in 
1821,  $5.92  per  cwt. ;  in  1822,  $5.91;  and  in  1823,  $5.83.  For 
the  purpose  of  my  argument,  I  will  assume  that  its  average  value, 


1824]  DUTY  ON  HEMP  91 

for  the  last  three  years,  on  board  of  the  vessel  at  the  place  of 
exportation,  has  been  $118  per  ton.  This  comes  within  a  frac- 
tion of  the  truth,  as  any  gentleman  may  discover  by  making  the 
calculation.  In  order  to  ascertain  what  ad  valorem  duty  would 
be  equal  to  the  present  specific  duty  of  $30  per  ton,  we  must  add 
to  this  $118  the  ten  per  cent,  required  to  be  added  by  existing 
laws,  in  estimating  an  ad  valorem  duty.  This  would  make  the 
dutiable  value  of  the  article  $129.80  per  ton;  and  of  consequence 
the  present  specific  duty  is  equal  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  about 
23  per  cent.  The  duty  proposed  by  this  bill  would,  therefore,  be 
equal  to  an  ad  valorem  duty  of  about  34  per  cent.,  and  would 
be  an  addition  of  only  1 1  per  cent.,  ad  valorem,  to  the  existing 
impost.  These  simple  facts,  taken  from  official  documents  in  the 
hands  of  every  member  of  the  Committee,  would  of  themselves 
be  a  satisfactory  answer  to  nearly  all  the  arguments  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts,  (Mr.  Reed.)  His  conclusions  have 
resulted  from  mistaken  premises. 

But,  said  Mr.  B.,  I  will  now  exhibit  to  the  view  of  the  Com- 
mittee another  statement,  derived  from  the  same  official  source, 
which  I  venture  to  predict  will  astonish  every  person  whose  atten- 
tion has  not  been  directed  particularly  to  the  subject.  In  1819 
there  were  25,578  tons  of  foreign  hemp,  on  which  a  duty  was  paid, 
imported  into  this  country.  In  1820  there  were  46,853 ;  in  182 1, 
59,963;  and  in  1822  it  had  increased  to  98,058  tons.  Thus, 
under  the  operation  of  the  existing  duty,  in  the  short  space  of 
three  years  the  increase  has  been  nearly  fourfold. 

In  this  manner,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  astonishing  spectacle 
is  presented  to  the  world  of  an  agricultural  nation,  possessing 
millions  of  acres  of  land  capable  of  producing  the  finest  hemp, 
dependent  for  its  supply  of  that  necessary  article  upon  a  dis- 
tant country.  There  must  be  something  rotten  in  the  system  of 
policy  from  which  such  consequences  proceed.  The  rapid  increase 
of  the  importation  of  the  foreign  article  demonstrates  that  an 
additional  duty  is  absolutely  necessary  to  check  its  further 
progress,  unless  you  wish  to  give  the  growers  of  the  article  in 
Russia  an  exclusive  monopoly  of  our  market  in  preference  to  our 
own  farmers.  The  additional  duty  proposed  is  moderate;  it  is 
no  more  than  a  protective  duty  in  favor  of  our  own  agriculture, 
and  will  not,  at  least  for  many  years  to  come,  prohibit  the  impor- 
tation of  foreign  hemp. 

If,  said  Mr.  B.,  I  understand  the  great  principle  of  this  bill, 
it  is  that  a  moderate  additional  protection  shall  be  afforded  to 


92  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

those  manufactures,  the  raw  material  of  which  either  is,  or  may  be 
made,  abundant  in  this  country.  Where  this  raw  material  is  a 
product  of  agriculture,  it  has  a  peculiar  claim  to  our  favor;  be- 
cause, by  that  means,  the  agricultural  interest,  which,  of  all  others, 
we  should  the  most  cherish,  and  which,  in  the  Middle  and  Western 
States,  is  now  very  much  depressed,  will  be  promoted.  When, 
in  addition  to  these  considerations,  we  reflect  that  hemp  is  an 
article  essential  to  our  naval  defence,  it  has  claims  to  our  regard 
which  are  at  least  equal  to  any  one  in  the  bill.  And  yet  the  policy 
which  we  have  been  pursuing,  if  we  continue  to  persist  in  it, 
will  render  us  entirely  dependent  upon  Russia  for  our  supply. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Reed)  has  con- 
tended that  the  domestic  hemp  is  not  equal  in  quality  to  the 
foreign ;  and,  in  order  to  establish  this  position,  he  has  read  the 
letter  from  the  Commissioners  of  the  Navy,  dated  27th  January, 
1824. 

This  authority  is,  I  think,  exceedingly  unfortunate  for  the 
support  of  the  argument.  I  will  read  one  paragraph  of  it,  which 
will  place  the  subject  in  its  proper  light: 

"  The  reasons,  say  the  Commissioners,  which  entitle  Russia 
hemp  to  a  preference,  are  to  be  found,  solely,  it  is  believed,  in  the 
manner  of  preparing  it  for  market.  In  its  natural  state,  Ameri- 
can hemp  is,  unquestionably,  as  good  as  that  of  any  other  country  ; 
and  numerous  experiments  prove  the  fact,  that,  when  prepared  as 
Russia  hemp  is,  it  is  fully  equal  to  the  best  Russia  hemp,  and, 
indeed,  superior  to  that  generally  imported.  The  Russian  method 
is  called  '  water  rotting ; '  that  practised  in  the  United  States, 
'  dew  rotting.'  " 

This  proves  conclusively  that  the  American  hemp,  when 
taken  from  the  ground,  is  equal,  if  not  superior,  in  quality,  to 
that  produced  in  Russia.  The  difference  is  in  the  manner  of  pre- 
paring it  for  market.  The  Russian  hemp  is  water  rotted;  the 
American  has  heretofore  generally  been  dew  rotted. 

Is  there  any  obstacle  to  prevent  us  from  water  rotting  hemp  ? 
Certainly  not ;  there  is  water  in  abundance,  for  that  purpose,  in 
many  parts  of  the  Union  which  are  well  adapted  to  its  growth. 
We  have  been  informed  by  the  Speaker,  that  the  process  of  water 
rotting  American  hemp,  has  already  commenced  in  several  places. 
Such  an  additional  encouragement  to  the  American  farmer  as  this 
bill  will  afford,  should  it  be  enacted  into  a  law,  will  enable  him, 
in  a  short  time,  to  come  into  fair  competition  with  the  Russian 
hemp  grower,  and  to  bring  into  the  home  market,  water  rotted 


1824]  DUTY  ON  HEMP  93 

hemp,  of  home  production,  fully  equal,  if  not  superior  in  quality, 
to  that  for  which  we  are  now  dependent  on  a  foreign  nation. 
Is  there  any  American  who  would  not  rejoice  at  such  an  event? 

Will  this  additional  duty,  said  Mr.  B.,  injure  the  navigating 
interest  of  the  country?  I  admit  that  it  may,  for  a  very  short 
time,  enhance  the  price  of  hemp  a  trifle;  but  it  cannot  produce 
any  of  the  evils  to  that  interest  which  the  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts (Mr.  Reed)  seems  to  dread.  The  effect  of  this  measure 
will  be  to  create  a  competition,  not  only  between  the  foreign  and 
domestic  hemp  growers,  but  among  the  domestic  hemp  growers 
themselves — and  the  consequence  will  be  an  eventual  reduction 
in  the  price.  The  experience  of  this  country,  in  regard  to  other 
articles,  justifies  this  anticipation.  Our  capacity  for  the  produc- 
tion of  hemp  is  unbounded.  All  that  is  necessary,  therefore,  to 
make  its  cultivation  successful,  is,  to  direct  a  portion  of  the 
domestic  industry,  which  is  now  languishing  for  want  of  employ- 
ment, towards  that  branch  of  agriculture. 

Whilst  I  am  up,  said  Mr.  B.,  I  will  advert  to  an  observation 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Wrebster)  a 
few  days  ago  in  reply  to  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
Domestic  Manufactures.  He  stated  that  the  old  notions  con- 
cerning a  balance  of  trade  were  idle  and  ridiculous,  and  that  they 
had  been  exploded  by  all  enlightened  political  economists  of  the 
present  day.  This  may  be  true  so  far  as  it  respects  political 
theorists;  but  no  practical  statesman,  either  in  our  own  or  any 
other  country,  has  ever  acted  upon  such  principles.  There  can 
be  no  case  put  which  will  be  a  stronger  illustration  to  show  the 
propriety  of  attending  to  the  balance  of  trade,  than  the  ruinous 
commerce  which  is  now  prosecuted  between  the  United  States 
and  Russia.  In  that  trade  there  is  an  annual  balance  against  us 
of  more  than  $2,000,000.  What  are  the  articles  which  we  re- 
ceive from  Russia,  and  which  create  this  balance?  Iron,  hemp, 
and  the  manufactures  of  hemp;  articles  which  we  are  capable  of 
producing  and  manufacturing  in  abundance  for  ourselves.  Will 
any  gentleman  contend  that,  if  we  did  supply  ourselves  with 
these  articles,  we  would  not  keep  among  our  own  citizens  that 
balance  which  we  now  annually  pay  to  Russia,  and  thus,  as  a 
nation,  be  so  much  the  more  rich  and  independent?  Is  it  neces- 
sary to  use  an  argument  to  prove  that  this  would  be  a  desirable 
event  ? 

I  know,  said  Mr.  B.,  it  has  been  stated  that  the  trade  with 
Russia  is  circuitous,  and  that  our  domestic  products  are  exported 


94  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

to  other  countries,  and  there  exchanged  for  articles  which  the 
Russians  receive  in  payment.  The  trade  to  Cuba,  and  from 
thence  to  Russia,  has  been  given  as  an  example.  This  observa- 
tion, however,  applies  only  to  a  part  of  our  trade  with  that  coun- 
try ;  the  larger  portion  of  it  is  direct,  and  the  balance  must  be 
paid  in  money.  And  yet  this  is  the  kind  of  commerce  which 
gentlemen  wish  to  continue  and  extend — a  commerce  which, 
while  it  produces  a  large  balance  against  us,  excludes  from  our 
markets  the  iron  and  the  hemp  of  our  own  citizens,  and  renders 
us  dependent  upon  foreign  countries  for  these  essential  articles 
of  national  defence.  If  Russia  would  receive  our  productions  in 
exchange  for  these  articles,  then  there  might  be  some  pretence 
for  desiring  a  continuance  of  this  trade.  But,  during  the  last 
year,  whilst  the  value  of  our  imports  from  that  country  was 
$2,195,870,  our  domestic  exports  amounted  only  to  the  small 
sum  of  $51,635. 

If,  said  Mr.  B.,  this  were  the  proper  occasion,  it  would  not 
be  difficult  to  prove  that  the  balance  of  trade  with  the  world  is 
now,  and  for  years  has  been,  against  us.  I  would  not  attempt 
to  do  this  from  fhe  books  of  the  custom-house.  I  agree  with 
gentlemen  that  they  alone  do  not  afford  a  correct  guide  upon 
this  subject.  It  is  certain  that  they  may  exhibit  a  large  apparent 
balance  against  us,  and  yet  the  real  balance  be  in  our  favor.  For 
example,  suppose  our  exports  amounted  to  $40,000,000,  and  our 
imports  to  $50,000,000,  if  we  had  no  evidence  upon  the  subject, 
except  the  books  of  the  custom-house,  we  might  fairly  conclude 
that  our  commercial  capital,  industry,  and  enterprise,  were  worth 
imports  to  the  value  of  $10,000,000,  and  that  thus  the  account 
would  be  balanced  and  the  country  enriched.  But  is  this  the 
case?  Do  we  not  know,  in  addition  to  the  testimony  which  they 
afford,  that  specie,  that  Government  stock,  that  bank  stock  of 
the  United  States,  and  even  the  canal  stock  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  have  been  leaving  the  country  to  purchase  goods  and  pay 
the  debts  which  we  owe  to  Great  Britain  ?  Do  we  not  know  that 
the  rate  of  exchange  upon  London  has  been  largely  and  contin- 
ually against  us  for  several  years?  This  shows,  conclusively, 
that,  notwithstanding  all  the  money  and  the  stocks  which  we  have 
exported,  funds  in  England,  for  years,  have  been  always  wanted 
by  the  merchants  of  this  country.  Bills  of  exchange  on  Eng- 
land, and  on  the  rest  of  Europe,  have  uniformly  commanded  a 
handsome  premium  for  a  considerable  period  of  time.  I  would 
ask  gentlemen  the  reason  why  they  have  been  in  such  demand, 


1824]  THE  DRAWBACK  SYSTEM  95 

if  it  were  not  to  pay  the  continual  balance  against  us  in  our  trade 
with  the  world.  Would  it  not,  then,  be  desirable  to  diminish 
our  imports  and  increase  our  exports?  This  bill,  should  it  pass, 
will,  in  my  opinion,  accomplish  that  desirable  object;  and  the 
additional  duty  upon  hemp,  which  it  proposes,  will,  in  no  small 
degree,  contribute  to  its  attainment.  But,  sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  I 
find  I  am  getting  into  a  discussion  of  the  general  principles  of 
this  bill,  which  I  do  not,  at  present,  intend ;  and  I  will,  therefore, 
desist,  at  this  time,  from  prosecuting  the  subject  farther. 

The  question  was  taken  on  the  amendment  and  decided  in 
the  negative — ayes  69,  noes  107.  And  then  the  Committee  rose, 
and  the  House  adjourned. 


REMARKS,  MARCH  25,  1824, 

ON  A  MOTION  TO  EXTEND  THE  DRAWBACK  SYSTEM.1 

The  question  recurring  on  the  original  motion  of  Mr. 
Webster, 

Mr.  Buchanan  expressed  his  wish  for  further  light  on  the 
subject  to  which  the  amendment  applied.  He  thought  the  system 
of  drawback  sufficiently  tried,  to  justify  the  proposed  extension 
of  it.  At  present  it  extends  only  to  fish,  spirits,  and  fine  sugar. 
He  thought  the  introduction  of  nankeens  of  the  East,  would  inter- 
fere with  our  own  cotton  factories,  as  this  bill  placed  the  Chinese 
manufactures  on  the  same  footing  with  our  own,  in  the  foreign 
market.  The  commerce  with  China,  he  said,  was  a  ruinous  one ; 
and  this  amendment  went  to  encourage  it,  and  to  discourage  our 
trade  to  France,  which  was  a  profitable  one. 

Mr.  Webster  replied.  This,  he  said,  was  only  a  transit 
trade;  we  encourage  our  merchants  to  go  to  China,  buy  their 
silks,  and  carry  them  to  South  America.  The  only  part  of  the 
China  trade  which  was  unprofitable,  was  that  in  articles  consumed 
in  this  country. 

Mr.  Buchanan  rejoined.  He  objected  to  the  amendment, 
as  complicating  the  system  of  drawback.  He  repeated  his  argu- 
ment respecting  its  effect  to  encourage  foreign  manufactures, 


1  Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong.  1  Sess.  1824,  II.  1910-1911.  Mr.  Webster's 
motion  was  to  amend  the  pending  tariff  bill  by  providing  that  the  drawback 
allowed  on  plain  silk  and  nankeen  cloths  imported  in  American  vessels  from 
beyond  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  should  be  allowed,  although  such  cloths  had, 
before  their  exportation,  been  colored,  printed,  stained,  dyed,  stamped,  or 
painted,  in  the  United  States. 


96  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

which,  he  said,  had  not  been  answered.  He  admitted,  that  the 
silks  imported,  went  out  again;  but,  why  encourage  their  intro- 
duction from  China,  in  preference  to  those  from  France. 

Mr.  Cobb  was  greatly  indebted  to  the  gentleman  from  Penn- 
sylvania, last  up,  for  his  care  of  the  cotton-growing  interests ;  but, 
he  should  thank  him  much  more,  if  he  would  consent  to  let  them 
alone.  For  his  own  part,  he  said,  when  the  friends  of  the  bill 
talked  of  extending  protection  to  the  cotton  growers,  he  felt  much 
like  the  Irish  recruit  who  was  forced  to  volunteer.  He  objected 
to  the  amendment  as  granting  an  encouragement  that  was  not 
needed;  he  had  no  idea  of  taking  money  out  of  the  Treasury 
to  put  it  in  the  pocket  of  those  who  were  already  doing  so  good 
a  business,  &c. 

Mr.  Fuller  replied  to  Mr.  Buchanan.  The  coloring  of 
stained  nankeens  put[s]  them  into  a  form  to  be  exported,  instead 
of  being  consumed  at  home,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  domestic 
manufacture.  He  agreed  in  the  opinion,  that  no  discrimination 
ought  to  be  made  between  French  and  China  silks.  He  argued, 
however,  that  the  home  consumption  would  not  be  affected,  nor 
the  cotton  manufacturer  be  injured  by  the  proposed  amendment. 
He  made  some  observations  on  the  French  trade,  to  show  that  it 
was  not  so  profitable  as  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  seemed 
to  suppose. 

Mr.  Sharpe  replied  to  the  gentleman  from  Georgia,  (Mr. 
Cobb.)  All  that  was  asked  by  the  silk  dyers,  he  said,  was,  that, 
after  they  had  expended  their  labor  on  the  article,  stained  and 
defaced  in  transportation,  they  should  be  allowed  the  same  draw- 
back upon  it,  as,  under  the  present  law,  would  be  allowed  on  it, 
if  brought  in  a  perfect  state,  and  exported  without  any  labor  at 
all.  Let  us  try  the  extension  of  this  drawback  system  on  a  mod- 
erate scale,  and  it  may  be  hereafter  abolished  or  extended,  as 
might  be  advisable. 

Mr.  Mallary  replied  to  Mr.  Cobb,  and  advocated  the  amend- 
ment on  principles  of  equality.  It  was  no  more  than  just,  he 
said,  that  the  benefit  of  this  branch  of  labor  should  be  enjoyed 
by  the  dyers,  as  well  as  the  agricultural  labor  by  the  cotton 
grower.  He  replied  to  Mr.  Buchanan,  and  advocated  the  pro- 
priety of  making  an  experiment,  in  gradually  extending  the 
drawback  system,  so  as  to  aid  in  the  protection  of  manufactures. 

Mr.  Poinsett  advocated  the  amendment.  Its  operation 
would  be  to  enable  our  merchants  to  carry  the  goods  of  China 
to  the  South  American  market,  and  otherwise,  the  merchants 


1824]  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF  97 

of  Britain  and  France  would  have  the  whole  trade  to  themselves. 
It  would  not  injure  our  manufactures,  while  it  would  encourage 
our  commerce. 

Mr.  Buchanan  replied,  and  stated  an  illustration  from  the 
case  of  hemp  and  calico;  the  dyed  nankeen  of  India,  he  said, 
displaced  our  cottons  in  the  South  American  markets. 

Mr.  Poinsett,  in  reply,  stated,  from  thorough  personal  ac- 
quaintance with  South  America,  that  the  people  of  that  country 
were  of  fixed  habits,  as  much  so  as  the  Chinese  themselves.  They 
would  go  on  in  their  old  path  and  none  other.  They  will  not 
take  our  cottons,  but  will  have  nankeens,  as  they  have  been  accus- 
tomed to;  and  if  we  do  not  carry  them  there  the  French  and 
English  will. 

Mr.  Sandford  repeated  and  enlarged  upon  his  objections  to 
the  amendment,  on  the  grounds  of  its  opening  a  door  to  frauds, 
&c. 

Mr.  Webster  made  a  few  more  observations ;   and 

The  question  being  taken,  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Webster 
was  agreed  to,  without  a  division. 


SPEECH,  APRIL  9,  1824, 

ON  THE  TARIFF  BILL.* 

The  House  then  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  report  of 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  bill  for  the  revision  of  the 
tariff. 

The  House  concurred  with  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  in 
the  fifth  amendment,  which  is  to  strike  out  the  following: 

On  Russia  duck,  per  piece  of  fifty-two  archeens,  two  dollars  each  piece; 

On  Raven's  duck,  per  piece  of  fifty-two  archeens,  one  dollar  and  twenty- 
five  cents  each  piece; 

On  Holland  duck,  per  piece  of  fifty-two  archeens,  two  dollars  and  fifty 
cents  each  piece. 

The  House  also  agreed  to  the  sixth  amendment,  which  is 
to  substitute  the  four  and  a  half  cents,  instead  of  six  cents,  as  the 
duty  on  cotton  bagging.     Ayes  84,  noes  62. 

The  seventh  amendment,  which  is  to  reduce  the  duty  on 
bar  iron,  from  $1.12  to  90  cents  per  cwt,  being  under  con- 
sideration— 


1  Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong.  1  Sess.  1824,  II.  2258-2271. 
7 


98  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

A  debate  arose,  in  which  Messrs.  Buchanan,  Udree,  Brown, 
and  Stewart,  opposed  the  reduction;  and  Messrs.  Reed,  Ran- 
dolph, Tucker,  McDuffie,  Mercer,  Cambreleng,  Webster,  and 
Marvin,  supported  it. 

Mr.  Buchanan  spoke  as  follows : 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  is  not  my  design  to  enter  into  a  discussion 
of  the  general  principles  of  the  bill  now  before  the  House.  Al- 
though I  am  fully  prepared  to  do  so,  yet,  time  has  become  so 
precious,  and  so  much  has  already  been  said  upon  the  subject, 
that  I  have  abandoned  any  such  intention. 

I  will,  however,  take  the  liberty  of  asking  the  Committee 
to  attend  to  some  observations  which  I  shall  make,  in  reply  to 
that  part  of  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
(Mr.  Webster)  which  related  to  hemp  and  iron.  The  reasons 
which  that  gentleman  urged,  with  great  ability  and  zeal,  against 
an  additional  duty  upon  these  articles,  were,  that  much  injury 
would  result  from  it,  to  the  manufacture  of  ships  and  to  the  navi- 
gation of  the  country.  In  the  course  of  his  remarks,  he  alleged 
that  our  navigation  had  been  left  dependent  upon  its  own  re- 
sources, without  any  protection  from  Government;  that  it  was 
in  a  depressed  and  declining  condition;  to  use  his  own  phrase, 
that  it  was  barely  able  to  keep  its  head  above  water;  and  that 
the  weight  which  this  bill  would  bring  to  bear  upon  it,  by 
the  additional  imposts  on  hemp  and  iron,  might  destroy  it,  or, 
to  repeat  the  gentleman's  words,  might  be  the  last  ounce  which 
would  break  the  camel's  back.  As  a  consequence  from  all  these 
observations,  he  inferred  that  the  Navy  was  in  danger  of 
destruction. 

In  opposition  to  this  argument,  I  trust  I  shall  be  able  to 
show,  conclusively,  that  no  branches  of  domestic  industry  have 
ever  been  cherished  by  the  legislation  of  this  country  with  as  much 
care  as  those  of  ship-building  and  navigation;  that  both  these 
branches,  although  they  have  suffered  in  the  general  depression 
of  the  country,  are  now  in  a  more  prosperous  condition  than 
any  other  portion  of  domestic  industry;  and  that  they  are 
perfectly  able,  and  ought  to  be  willing,  to  bear  the  additional 
duty  upon  hemp  and  iron  proposed  by  this  bill,  even  if  it  should 
amount  to  what  the  gentleman  supposes.  If,  said  Mr.  B., 
I  can  establish  these  positions,  it  will  result  as  a  necessary  infer- 
ence, that  our  Navy  is  in  no  danger  from  the  measure  now  under 
consideration. 


1824]  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF  99 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  it  is  fortunate  that  the  first  Congress  which 
sat  under  the  Federal  Constitution,  when  they  came  to  legislate 
upon  the  navigating  interest  of  the  country,  were  not  guided  by 
the  principles  which  we  have  so  often  heard  reiterated  in  this 
Hall.  They  did  not  belong  to  that  school  of  politicians  whose 
principal  dogmas  are,  "  Let  trade  regulate  itself ;  "  "  Let  not 
legislation  attempt  to  divert  industry  or  capital  from  the  channels 
in  which  they  are  flowing  into  other  branches."  On  the  contrary, 
they  believed  that  the  manufacture  of  ships,  and  their  navigation, 
were  interests  which  required  legislative  protection,  and  they 
afforded  it  in  the  most  effectual  manner. 

The  third  act  which  ever  passed  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  was  that  of  the  20th  July,  1789,  imposing  duties  on  tonnage. 
It  was  afterwards  repealed  by  the  act  of  the  20th  July,  1790; 
which,  however,  re-enacted  in  substance  the  same  provisions. 
Whilst  these  acts  declare  that  ships  or  vessels  of  the  United 
States,  arriving  from  any  foreign  port  or  place,  shall  pay  a  duty 
of  only  six  cents  per  ton  upon  each  entry,  they  enact  that  all 
other  ships  or  vessels  shall  pay  a  duty  of  fifty  cents  per  ton,  except 
those  built  within  the  United  States  and  belonging  to  foreigners, 
which  shall  pay  thirty  cents  per  ton.  The  legislative  protection 
afforded  by  these  acts,  to  that  portion  of  our  tonnage  employed 
in  the  coasting  trade  and  in  the  fisheries,  was  of  a  still  more  deci- 
sive character.  Whilst  ships  or  vessels  of  the  United  States,  en- 
gaged in  these  pursuits,  paid  a  duty  of  but  six  cents  per  ton,  in 
each  year,  those  "  not  of  the  United  States  "  paid  fifty  cents  per 
ton  upon  each  entry. 

In  addition  to  these  discriminating  duties  upon  tonnage,  in 
favor  of  our  own  citizens,  the  act  of  the  10th  August,  1790, 
added  10  per  cent,  to  the  rates  of  duties  imposed,  "  in  respect 
to  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise  which  shall  be  imported  in 
ships  or  vessels  not  of  the  United  States." 

What,  Mr.  Speaker,  was  the  effect  of  this  legislative  protec- 
tion upon  our  tonnage  and  navigation  ?  Let  Mr.  Pitkin  and  Dr. 
Seybert  answer  this  question.  Mr.  Pitkin,  in  his  View,  declares 
that— 

These  extra  charges  on  the  navigation  and  commerce  of  foreign  nations 
were  sufficient  to  drive  from  our  ports  the  greatest  proportion  of  the  foreign 
tonnage.  All  foreign  nations  were  affected  by  the  system  we  had  adopted  in 
favor  of  the  ship-owners  in  the  United  States.  The  diminution  of  the  foreign 
tonnage  employed  in  our  trade  was,  with  very  few  exceptions,  rapid,  regular, 
and  permanent. 


100  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

Dr.  Seybert,  in  his  Statistical  Annals,  bears  the  same  testi- 
mony.    He  states  that — 

Our  discriminations  operated  powerfully  in  favor  of  our  shipping. 
Vessels  not  of  the  United  States,  of  200  tons  burden,  on  entering  our  ports, 
paid  £20  tonnage  duty,  and  for  a  cargo  of  the  value  of  £2,000,  they  paid 
£15,  extra  duty,  more  than  did  the  vessels  of  the  United  States,  of  the  same 
tonnage,  and  laden  as  aforesaid.  These  extra  charges  were  sufficient  to  drive 
from  our  ports  the  greatest  proportion  of  the  foreign  tonnage.  All  foreign 
nations  were  affected  by  the  system  we  had  adopted;  it  seemed  to  operate 
like  magic  in  favor  of  the  ship-owners  in  the  United  States.  The  diminution 
of  the  foreign  tonnage  employed  in  our  trade  was,  with  very  few  exceptions, 
rapid,  regular,  and  permanent 

I  will  freely  acknowledge,  said  Mr.  B.,  that  the  wars  in 
Europe,  and  our  neutral  condition,  by  placing  within  our  reach 
a  large  portion  of  the  carrying  trade  of  other  nations,  assisted 
these  discriminating  duties  in  producing  their  effect  upon  our 
navigation,  with  such  astonishing  rapidity.  Dr.  Seybert  states, 
that  "  in  1789,  our  shipping  was  not  sufficient  for  the  transpor- 
tation of  the  domestic  produce  of  the  States;  one-third  of  that 
which  was  then  employed  for  that  purpose,  belonged  to  foreign- 
ers;" and  that  "in  1793,  our  tonnage  exceeded  that  of  every 
other  nation,  except  Great  Britain." 

These  discriminating  duties,  and  the  unexampled  increase  of 
our  tonnage,  alarmed  the  Government  of  Great  Britain.  They 
dreaded  the  rapid  progress  of  our  navigation,  and  made  it  a 
primary  object  to  check  its  augmentation.  For  this  purpose, 
they  proposed,  in  the  year  1791,  "  that  British  ships  trading  to 
the  ports  of  the  United  States,  should  be  there  treated,  with 
respect  to  the  duties  of  tonnage  and  impost,  in  like  manner  as 
ships  of  the  United  States  should  be  treated  in  the  ports  of  Great 
Britain."  By  this  means,  they  expected  to  crush  our  navigation 
in  its  infancy.  They  well  knew,  if  they  could  persuade  our  Gov- 
ernment to  cast  it,  at  that  period  of  its  existence,  upon  the  ocean, 
without  protection,  they  would  obtain  what  they  so  ardently  de- 
sired— a  monopoly  of  our  trade.  They  were  convinced,  that  our 
navigation  could  not  then  endure  a  competition  with  the  long 
established  navigation  of  Great  Britain. 

The  statesmen  of  that  day,  thanks  be  to  Providence,  did 
not  act  upon  the  modern  fashionable  doctrines  of  political  econ- 
omy. They  refused  to  accept  this  offer  of  a  reciprocity  of  trade 
between  the  two  countries,  which  Great  Britain  had  made.  They 
did  not  adopt  the  principle,  that  trade  should  regulate  itself.  No, 
Mr.  Speaker,  they  cherished  and  nourished  our  navigation  in  its 


1824]  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF  101 

infancy,  by  protecting  duties;  and,  in  this  manner,  infused  into 
it  such  energy  and  vigor,  that  it  can  now  fearlessly  go  forth,  and, 
upon  equal  terms,  challenge  competition  with  the  world.  The 
same  kind  of  protection  will  produce  the  same  effect  upon  the 
manufactories  which  this  bill  proposes  to  encourage. 

Dr.  Seybert  informs  us,  that  these  discriminating  duties  on 
tonnage  and  imports  alarmed  the  British  merchants  and  ship- 
owners. That  was  a  most  favorable  omen.  In  this  particular,  I 
can  congratulate  the  advocates  of  the  present  bill  that  they  are 
equally  fortunate.  Every  British  merchant,  every  British  agent, 
and  every  vender  of  British  goods,  within  the  United  States, 
have  taken  the  alarm.  Should  this  bill  pass,  they  know  that  the 
day  is  not  far  distant,  when  they  shall  cease  to  drain  from  us  our 
wealth,  and  to  enrich  themselves  and  the  British  manufacturers, 
at  our  expense. 

The  House  have  distinctly  perceived  the  effect  of  these 
discriminating  duties  upon  the  foreign  tonnage  of  the  United 
States.  Their  operation  upon  that  employed  in  the  coasting 
trade  was  still  more  decisive.  In  this  trade,  the  voyages  from 
port  to  port  in  the  United  States  being,  comparatively  speaking, 
but  short,  the  burden  of  fifty  cents  per  ton,  upon  every  entry, 
imposed  upon  foreign  vessels,  was  so  onerous  that,  in  its  effect, 
it  soon  amounted  to  an  absolute  prohibition.  In  this  manner  our 
own  navigation  was  virtually  put  in  the  exclusive  possession  of 
that  important  branch  of  our  commerce,  long  before  the  act  of 
1817  declared  "  That  no  goods,  wares,  or  merchandise,  shall  be 
imported,  under  penalty  of  forfeiture  thereof,  from  one  port  of 
the  United  States  to  another  port  of  the  United  States,  in  a 
vessel  belonging  wholly  or  in  part  to  a  subject  of  any  foreign 
Power." 

It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  these  acts  of  Congress  went 
much  further  in  protecting  our  navigation  against  foreign  com- 
petition, than  the  bill  now  before  the  House  contemplates  going, 
in  regard  to  any  branch  of  our  agriculture  or  manufactures.. 
And  yet  the  representatives  of  the  navigating  interest  in  this 
House,  not  only  complain  that  it  has  been  left  dependent  upon  its 
own  resources,  without  any  protection  from  Government;  but 
they  are  the  first  and  loudest  in  resisting  the  moderate  encourage- 
ment which  this  bill  proposes  to  other  branches  of  domestic  indus- 
try.    Is  this  grateful ?     Is  it  generous ?     Is  it  just? 

Here,  Mr.  Speaker,  it  may  be  necessary  to  show  in  what 
manner  the  acts  of  Congress,  to  which  I  have  referred,  gave  our 


102  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

ship-builders  protection.  It  will  be  found  that  the  statesmen, 
by  whom  they  were  enacted,  had  a  proper  idea  of  the  importance 
of  encouraging  the  manufacture  of  ships;  and,  I  trust,  those  of 
the  present  day  are  not  so  degenerate,  that  they  need  to  be  re- 
minded of  it  by  the  toast  of  a  Prime  Minister  of  England,  which 
the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Webster)  has  thought  fit 
to  repeat  for  our  edification. 

We  have  seen  that  these  discriminating  duties  upon  imports 
and  tonnage,  in  favor  of  our  own  citizens,  were  confined  in  their 
operation  to  "  ships  or  vessels  of  the  United  States."  To  con- 
stitute "  a  ship  or  vessel  of  the  United  States,"  it  is  necessary 
not  only  that  it  should  be  owned  by  a  citizen  or  citizens  thereof, 
but  that  it  should  have  been  built  within  the  same.  This  is  a 
general  rule,  to  which  I  know  of  but  two  exceptions — the  one 
in  favor  of  vessels  captured  by  our  citizens  from  the  enemy,  and 
declared  to  be  lawful  prize,  and  the  other  of  vessels  condemned 
for  a  breach  of  the  revenue  laws.  There  never  was  a  time  in  the 
history  of  the  United  States  when  an  American  merchant  could 
purchase  from  a  foreign  ship-builder  a  vessel  built  in  a  foreign 
country,  and  have  her  so  naturalized  under  our  laws  as  to  free 
her  from  the  imposition  of  these  discriminating  duties.  Of  con- 
sequence, the  domestic  manufacture  of  ships  was  as  completely 
protected  by  these  regulations  against  foreign  competition  as  was 
our  navigation.  The  ship-builder  and  navigator  moved  hand  in 
hand.  The  same  encouragement  was  afforded  to  both,  and  the 
same  success  attended  that  encouragement.  We  are  now  able 
to  manufacture  ships  much  cheaper,  as  I  shall  show  hereafter, 
than  they  can  in  Great  Britain. 

Let  us  now  pause  for  a  moment,  and  reflect  what  would 
have  been  the  present  condition  of  our  ship-building  and  navi- 
gation, had  the  same  system  of  policy  been  pursued  in  relation 
to  these  important  interests,  which  gentlemen  now  wish  to  pursue 
towards  our  domestic  manufactures.  England,  our  great  rival, 
possessed  tonnage  in  abundance,  capital,  and  skill.  It  was  both 
her  interest  and  her  inclination  to  overwhelm  our  rising  navi- 
gation. The  struggle  would  have  been  between  the  vigor  of 
manhood  and  the  feebleness  of  infancy.  Our  navigation,  with- 
out protection,  must  have  been  crushed.  It  then  stood  in  the 
same  relation  to  British  navigation,  that  our  infant  manufactures 
do  at  present  towards  the  long  existing  establishments  of  a  similar 
nature  in  Great  Britain. 


1824]  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF  103 

The  very  same  arguments  which  the  navigating  interest  have 
used  against  this  bill,  might  have  been  urged  in  opposition  to 
the  discriminating  duties  for  their  protection.  The  agriculturists, 
who  had  produce  to  be  transported  to  a  foreign  market,  might 
have  argued  that,  if  freight  could  be  procured  at  a  cheaper  rate 
in  an  English  than  in  an  American  vessel,  they  had  a  right  to 
this  advantage;  that  these  discriminating  duties  were  bounties, 
paid  by  the  great  mass  of  the  people  to  the  navigating  interest, 
and,  therefore,  they  should  not  be  imposed.  The  shipping  mer- 
chants might  have  said,  Let  us  buy  where  we  can  buy  the  cheap- 
est, and  sell  where  we  can  sell  the  dearest.  If  it  be  for  our 
advantage,  permit  us,  without  the  payment  of  discriminating 
duties,  to  purchase  our  ships  in  foreign  countries.  Government 
should  not,  by  legislation,  divert  capital  from  other  branches  into 
ship-building  and  navigation.  Whenever  it  shall  be  for  the  in- 
terest of  individuals  to  employ  it  in  this  manner,  it  will  be  so 
employed;  and  then,  and  not  till  then,  will  it  be  the  interest  of 
the  nation. 

The  true  answer  to  all  the  suggestions  of  this  nature,  which 
might  have  been  urged  against  our  discriminating  duties,  and 
have  been  used  against  the  present  bill,  is,  that  a  wise  nation, 
like  a  wise  individual,  should  be  willing  to  suffer  a  trifling  tempo- 
rary inconvenience  in  the  beginning,  that  it  may  attain  a  great 
permanent  good  in  the  end.  Should  you  plant  and  nourish  those 
domestic  manufactures  only,  which  are  congenial  to  your  country, 
and  of  which  you  possess  the  raw  material  in  abundance;  if,  in 
their  infancy,  you  shield  them,  by  protecting  duties,  against  de- 
struction from  foreign  competition  and  foreign  capital ;  although, 
for  a  short  time,  the  price  may  be  enhanced  to  the  consumer, 
yet,  before  long,  it  will  be  reduced  below  that  of  the  foreign 
article.  Our  experience  with  respect  to  coarse  cotton  goods 
completely  justifies  this  remark. 

But,  upon  the  present  occasion,  we  should  be  governed  by 
higher  considerations  than  these.  I  would  vote  for  this  bill  upon 
the  same  principle  that  I  would  for  the  erection  of  a  necessary 
fortification  or  the  building  of  a  navy.  Are  not  the  woollen 
and  the  cotton  manufactures  necessary  to  our  independence? 
Is  a  nation  perfectly  independent,  without  clothing  for  its  people, 
without  iron,  and  without  hemp?  Is  it  either  patriotic  or  wise 
to  rely  for  the  means  of  defence  upon  foreign  nations,  when  we 
possess  them  in  abundance  within  ourselves? 


104  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

In  the  days  of  peace,  whilst  those  nations  are  all  desirous  of 
pouring  their  manufactures  upon  us,  and  of  exhausting  our 
wealth  for  their  aggrandizement,  we  shall  experience  no  difficulty 
in  obtaining  supplies.  But,  let  the  clouds  of  war  lower  over  our 
heads,  let  the  nation  be  deprived  of  its  foreign  supplies,  and  cast 
upon  its  own  energies  for  its  defence,  and  what  will  then  be  our 
condition?  The  events  of  the  late  war,  within  the  recollection 
of  every  gentleman  on  this  floor,  afford  the  best  answer  to  this 
question.  If  there  ever  were  a  nation  which  should  have  been 
taught  wisdom  on  this  subject,  by  the  lessons  of  experience,  it  is 
our  own. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  been  wandering  from  that  portion 
of  the  subject,  to  which  I  promised  I  would  confine  myself,  into 
the  general  principles  of  the  bill.  The  best  apology  which  I  can 
make  for  this  digression  is  to  return  to  it  immediately. 

I  admit,  said  Mr.  B.,  that  the  navigating  interest,  in  common 
with  the  other  great  interests  of  the  country,  suffered  considerable 
depression  in  consequence  of  the  general  peace  in  Europe.  I 
deny,  however,  that  this  depression  was  at  all  in  proportion  with 
that  experienced  either  by  agriculture  or  manufactures.  During 
the  long  period  in  which  the  nations  of  Europe  were  involved 
in  war,  we  had  a  large  portion  of  the  carrying  trade  of  the  world. 
The  general  pacification  terminated  this  profitable  branch  of  com- 
merce, and  left  our  navigating  interest  dependent  upon  its  own 
resources,  and  those  of  the  country.  It  will  be  found,  however, 
upon  examination,  that,  notwithstanding  the  disadvantages 
against  which  it  had  to  contend,  the  Government  and  the  people 
of  the  United  States  sustained  it  in  this  crisis.  It  has  always 
been  the  favorite  of  our  legislation. 

The  American  tonnage,  employed  in  foreign  trade,  which 
entered  the  ports  of  the  United  States,  during  the  year  ending 
the  last  day  of  September,  1823,  was  775,271  tons.  This  is 
greater  than  it  has  been  in  any  year  ending  on  the  last  day  of 
December,  since  181 1,  except  the  years  181 6,  181 7,  181 9,  and 
1820.  It  is  nearly  5,000  tons  less  than  in  1817;  but  it  is  above 
20,000  tons  more  than  in  1818,  and  upwards  of  5,000  tons  more 
than  in  1821.  The  House  will  understand  that  I  am  now  speak- 
ing of  the  tonnage  which  paid  duties.  It  will  at  once  be  per- 
ceived, that  this  is  greater  than  our  actual  foreign  tonnage,  inas- 
much as  the  same  vessel  may,  and  often  does,  pay  duty  more 
than  once  in  a  year.  If,  however,  we  look  at  the  actual  registered 
tonnage  of  the  United  States,  engaged  in  foreign  trade,  the  pros- 


1824]  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF  105 

pect  is  equally  cheering.  It  has  been  gradually  increasing  for 
several  years.  I  hold  a  statement  of  it  in  my  hand,  from  1816 
up  till  1822,  both  inclusive;  from  which  it  appears  that,  in  1822, 
it  amounted  to  628,150  tons.  In  181 8,  it  had  been  606,088. 
Between  these  two  periods,  its  increase  was  22,062  tons.  Al- 
though, from  this  statement,  it  appears  that,  in  1816,  it  was 
800,759  tons,  in  181 7,  809,724  tons,  and  that,  in  1818,  it  was 
suddenly  reduced  to  606,088  tons,  yet  this  is  not  a  true  state  of 
the  case.  The  Register  of  the  Treasury  has  certified  that  this 
sudden  decrease  arose  "  principally  from  the  registered  tonnage 
having  been  corrected  in  181 8,  by  striking  off  all  the  vessels,  the 
registers  of  which  were  granted  prior  to  the  year  181 5,  and  which 
were  supposed  by  the  collectors  to  have  been  lost  at  sea,  cap- 
tured/' &c. 

Whilst  the  present  state  of  our  foreign  tonnage  presents 
nothing  calculated  to  produce  despondence,  the  condition  of  that 
employed  in  our  coasting  trade  is  flourishing  beyond  example. 
It  has  been  increasing  gradually  and  rapidly  ever  since  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Federal  Constitution.  In  18 16  it  amounted  to  522,- 
164  tons.  In  1822  it  was  624,188  tons.  Thus,  it  appears  that, 
in  the  short  space  of  six  years,  it  increased  more  than  100,000 
tons.  The  same  quantity  of  tonnage,  in  this  trade,  affords  em- 
ployment to  a  much  greater  number  of  sailors  than  in  the  foreign 
trade;  and  the  actual  tonnage  engaged  in  each  is  now  about 
equal. 

This  branch  of  our  commerce  must  grow  with  our  growth, 
and  strengthen  with  our  strength.  Human  foresight  cannot  cal- 
culate its  future  extent  or  advantages,  should  it  be  directed  by  a 
wise  system  of  policy.  The  territory  of  this  nation  is  so  vast, 
and  its  capacities  for  the  production  and  manufacture  of  almost 
every  article  of  necessity  or  luxury  are  so  extensive,  that  nearly 
all  our  mutual  wants  will,  at  no  very  distant  day,  be  supplied 
by  a  free  and  unrestricted  commerce  with  each  other.  Besides, 
this  trade  will  be  a  powerful  means  of  perpetuating  our  Union. 
Providence,  by  rendering  the  different  portions  of  our  country 
dependent  upon  each  other,  has  laid  the  foundations  of  that  inter- 
course which  will  bind  us  together  by  the  adamantine  bonds  of 
mutual  interest  and  affection. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  it  must  strike  every  person  with  astonish- 
ment, who  examines  this  subject,  that  our  foreign  tonnage  has 
not  been  greatly  diminished  since  the  general  pacification  of 
Europe.     How  has  this  interest  been  able  to  support  itself  at 


106  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

its  present  amount,  notwithstanding  the  loss  of  the  foreign  carry- 
ing trade?  I  answer,  by  the  aid  of  Governmental  protection; 
and,  although  this  allegation  may  be  at  variance  with  that  of  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  (Mr.  Webster,)  I  hold  myself 
bound  to  prove  it. 

In  the  year  1815  the  United  States,  believing  her  marine  to 
have  acquired  sufficient  strength  and  vigor  to  sustain  a  competi- 
tion upon  equal  terms  against  the  world,  proposed  to  all  nations 
a  fair  reciprocity  of  trade.  By  the  act  of  the  3d  of  March  of  that 
year,  we  declared  that  we  would  admit  into  our  ports  the  vessels 
of  every  nation,  carrying  articles  the  produce  or  manufacture 
of  such  nation,  without  levying  any  other  tonnage  or  impost  duty 
than  was  levied  on  American  vessels;  provided  such  nation 
would  admit  into  their  ports  American  vessels,  laden  with  Ameri- 
can produce  or  manufactures,  without  imposing  any  impost  or 
tonnage  duty  beyond  that  which  was  paid  by  their  own  vessels. 
On  the  3d  July,  181 5,  the  United  States  concluded  a  com- 
mercial convention  with  Great  Britain,  founded  upon  these  prin- 
ciples, so  far  as  respected  our  trade  with  her  territories  in  Europe ; 
but  her  possessions  in  the  West  Indies,  and  on  the  continent  of 
North  America,  were  expressly  excluded  from  its  operation. 

The  British  Government,  after  the  general  peace  in  Europe, 
determined  to  adhere  rigidly  to  their  colonial  system,  so  far  as 
their  own  navigation  was  concerned.  x\lthough  they  were  will- 
ing that  there  should  be  a  direct  trade  between  the  United  States 
and  their  West  Indian  and  North  American  colonies,  yet  they 
insisted  that  it  should  be  carried  on  by  their  own  vessels.  The 
ports  of  these  colonies  were  therefore  closed  against  American 
vessels,  and  they  were  entirely  excluded  from  any  participation 
in  the  trade. 

What  portion  of  our  citizens  was  injured  by  the  exclusion 
of  American  tonnage  from  these  ports?  It  was  not  the  farmer, 
who  had  corn  and  flour,  nor  the  planter,  who  had  tobacco,  nor 
the  merchant,  who  had  lumber,  to  be  transported  to  market. 
To  them  it  was  a  matter  of  no  importance,  whether  these  articles 
were  carried  to  the  West  Indies  in  an  English  or  an  American 
vessel.  In  either  case,  they  could  be  exchanged  for  the  same 
quantity  of  rum,  sugar,  or  molasses.  It  was  the  navigating  inter- 
est alone,  which  was  directly  injured  by  this  regulation.  No 
other  class  of  society  had  any  concern  in  the  question,  except  that 
general  one,  which  every  good  citizen  ought  to  feel  in  protecting 
the  useful  establishments  of  his  country.     Our  navigating  interest 


1824]  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF  107 

petitioned  Congress  for  relief.  What  was  the  consequence? 
For  their  benefit,  we  conceived  the  bold  design  of  compelling 
Great  Britain  to  abandon  her  colonial  system,  and  to  break  those 
fetters  in  which  she  had  for  ages  bound  this  portion  of  her  trade. 
On  the  1 8th  April,  1818,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  passed 
a  law,  declaring  that  "  the  ports  of  the  United  States  shall  be 
and  remain  closed  against  every  vessel  owned  wholly  or  in  part 
by  a  subject  or  subjects  of  His  Britannic  Majesty,  coming  or 
arriving  from  any  port  or  place  in  a  colony  or  territory  of  His 
Britannic  Majesty,  that  is  or  shall  be,  by  the  ordinary  laws  of 
navigation  and  trade,  closed  against  vessels  owned  by  citizens  of 
the  United  States."  The  provisions  of  this  act  were  considerably 
extended  by  those  of  the  supplementary  act  of  the  15th  May, 
1820. 

What,  then,  were  the  weapons  with  which  we  commenced 
this  great  undertaking?  For  its  accomplishment,  we  depended 
altogether  upon  the  patience  and  patriotism  of  our  people.  The 
contest  was,  whether  our  citizens  interested  in  the  trade  with  the 
British  colonies,  or  those  colonies,  could  the  longest,  and  with 
the  most  fortitude,  endure  its  destruction.  How  much  those  citi- 
zens suffered,  for  the  benefit  of  the  navigation  of  the  country,  will 
appear  from  the  very  able  memorial  from  Norfolk,  which  was 
presented  during  the  first  session  of  the  last  Congress.  The 
memorialists  urged  the  repeal  of  these  acts.  They  stated  their 
conviction,  that  the  attempt  to  compel  Great  Britain  to  abandon 
her  colonial  system  was  altogether  hopeless ;  as  she  had  "  often 
and  openly  avowed  her  determination  not  to  abandon  it  but 
with  her  existence."  They  declared  that,  under  the  operation 
of  the  existing  laws,  their  farmers,  their  merchants,  their  dealers 
in  timber  and  lumber,  in  fact  all  classes  of  their  citizens  were 
deprived,  in  a  great  measure,  of  their  former  resources,  and  were, 
many  of  them,  burdened  with  debts  which  they  were  unable  to 
pay.  This  picture,  drawn  by  the  inhabitants  of  Norfolk,  of  their 
sufferings  for  the  benefit  of  our  navigation,  is  applicable  to  every 
other  part  of  the  Union  interested  in  the  trade  with  the  British 
West  Indies. 

The  spirit  of  the  country,  however,  nobly  sustained  its  navi- 
gation in  this  contest.  The  great  agricultural  interest  stood 
unmoved.  They  were  willing  to  suffer  for  the  benefit  of  the 
ship-owners.     Congress  refused  to  repeal  these  acts. 

Our  bold  policy  finally  triumphed,  and,  on  the  24th  June, 
1822,  an  act  of  the  British  Parliament  repealed  their  colonial  sys- 


108  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

tern  in  favor  of  the  United  States,  and  opened  their  ports  in  the 
West  Indies  and  North  America  to  vessels  belonging  to  our  citi- 
zens. And  yet,  notwithstanding,  the  navigating  interest  com- 
plain that  they  have  been  left  unprotected  by  the  Government 
to  struggle  against  the  world. 

Here,  said  Mr.  B.,  I  will  take  leave  to  remark,  that  I  was 
astonished  to  hear  it  alleged  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts, 
(Mr.  Webster,)  that  this  concession,  made  by  the  British  Govern- 
ment in  favor  of  our  navigation,  was  an  evidence  that  they  were 
departing  from  their  restrictive  system.  No,  sir;  if  it  proves 
any  thing,  it  is  the  efficiency  of  this  system.  This  concession 
was  extorted  from  them  by  the  adoption  of  our  countervailing 
restrictions,  and  is  strong  testimony  in  favor  of  the  power  of  that 
policy,  when  properly  exercised,  to  obtain  justice  from  foreign 
nations.  However  much  English  statesmen  may  talk  about  the 
new  doctrine  of  the  freedom  of  trade,  they  take  care  to  act,  in 
every  case  of  importance,  upon  their  old  principles.  It  is,  there- 
fore, not  improbable,  that  the  scraps  of  speeches  made  by  my 
Lord  Liverpool,  and  others,  which  the  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts (Mr.  Wrebster)  has  collected  and  read  to  this  House, 
have  found  their  way  to  the  very  market  for  which  they  were 
intended.  Should  this  bill  be  defeated  at  the  present  session,  as 
I  trust  it  will  not,  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  we  shall  have  a  fresh 
supply  of  the  same  articles  imported  before  the  next  session  of 
Congress.  In  Great  Britain  they  dread  nothing  more  than  the 
adoption  by  our  country  of  that  system,  which  the  Speaker  has 
aptly  styled  the  American  policy.  Rest  assured,  sir,  they  will 
leave  no  means  untried  to  defeat  it. 

I  will  mention  one  other  example  to  show  with  what  care, 
and  at  what  expense  to  the  other  interests  of  the  country,  this 
Government  has  fostered,  and  I  admit  wisely,  its  navigation. 
France,  immediately  after  she  had  extricated  herself  from  the 
long  wars  in  which  she  had  been  involved,  devoted  herself  to  the 
cultivation  of  the  arts  of  peace.  Among  other  things,  she  imme- 
diately directed  her  attention  towards  her  marine.  She  was 
anxious  to  obtain  the  exclusive  privilege  of  carrying  those  of 
our  productions  which  she  used  in  her  manufactures.  For  this 
purpose  she  established  discriminating  duties,  in  favor  of  cotton, 
tobacco  and  potashes,  imported  in  her  own  vessels,  which  are 
equivalent  to  a  tonnage  duty  of  from  $18  to  $21  per  ton.  The 
navigating  interest  of  the  United  States  took  the  alarm,  and 
memorialized  Congress  upon  the  subject.     To  that  interest  Con- 


1824]  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF  109 

gress  never  lent  a  deaf  ear.  On  the  15th  of  May,  1820,  an  act 
passed,  which  imposed  a  countervailing  duty  of  $18  per  ton, 
upon  all  French  vessels  entering  the  ports  of  the  United  States. 
The  consequence  of  this  measure  was  the  suspension,  in  a  great 
degree,  of  the  direct  trade  between  this  country  and  France. 
That  profitable  branch  of  our  commerce  was  at  once  sacrificed 
to  promote  the  interests  of  our  navigation.  The  House  will 
readily  perceive  to  what  degree  that  portion  of  the  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  who  had  commodities  to  be  carried  to  market 
in  France,  must  have  suffered  under  the  operation  of  this  system. 
They,  however,  suffered  without  murmuring;  because  they  knew 
that  their  misfortunes  were  intended  to  benefit  that  class  of  their 
fellow-citizens  concerned  in  navigation. 

Our  countervailing  duties  on  French  tonnage  produced  the 
desired  effect.  On  the  24th  June,  1822,  the  very  day  on  which 
the  British  Parliament  opened  their  colonial  ports  to  our  vessels, 
the  convention  with  France  was  concluded,  which  placed  our 
carrying  trade  with  that  country  upon  a  fair  and  reciprocal 
basis. 

From  this  brief  history,  we  have  learned  that  the  patience 
and  patriotism  of  the  people  of  this  country  have  obtained  for 
their  foreign  navigation,  a  signal  triumph  over  both  England  and 
France;  and  have  opened  new  and  profitable  avenues  for  its  en- 
terprise. And  yet  the  Representatives  of  that  interest  upon  this 
floor,  complain  loudly  that  it  has  been  left  unprotected.  They 
make  this  complaint  in  the  face  of  a  system  of  legislation  in  its 
favor,  which  is  unparalleled  in  the  annals  of  the  country  in  regard 
to  any  other  object.  The  Government  watched  over  its  infancy 
with  parental  care,  and  afforded  it  protection  against  foreign 
rivals,  whilst  such  protection  was  necessary.  When  it  had 
attained  sufficient  vigor  to  fear  no  rival — when  a  fair  competition 
with  all  nations  was  that  which  it  most  desired,  the  Government 
obtained  for  it  this  important  advantage.  Now,  when  it  is  in  a 
prosperous  situation,  having  got  every  thing  which  it  asked,  it 
is  the  first  to  cry  out  against  affording  a  comparatively  trifling 
protection  to  other  branches  of  American  industry.  Is  this  grati- 
tude? Is  it  even-handed  justice?  Is  it  doing  unto  others  as 
you  would  they  should  do  unto  you  ? 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  prove,  that  the  navigation  of  the 
country  is  perfectly  able  to  bear  the  additional  duty  upon  hemp 
and  iron  proposed  in  the  bill,  as  reported  by  the  Committee  on 
Manufactures.     In  order  to  establish  this  position,  it  will  not 


110  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

be  necessary  to  add  much  to  what  I  have  already  said.  For  the 
sake  of  the  argument,  I  shall  suppose,  with  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts,  (Mr.  Webster,)  that  the  small  additional  duties 
upon  these  articles  will  be  permanent  additional  burdens  to  that 
amount  imposed  upon  our  navigation.  Even  under  this  view  of 
the  subject,  that  interest  is  able  to  bear  them;  and  considering 
what  has  been  done  for  it  by  the  country,  ought  to  bear  them 
for  the  common  good,  without  a  murmur. 

The  House,  I  feel  certain,  will  understand,  I  do  not  admit 
that  these  additional  duties  will  continue  to  be  additional  burdens 
upon  the  navigating  interest.  On  the  contrary,  I  firmly  believe 
that  the  domestic  competition  which  must  necessarily  spring  up 
under  this  protection,  will,  in  a  few  years,  reduce  the  price  both 
of  hemp  and  of  iron. 

These  additional  duties  cannot  injure  the  tonnage  employed 
in  our  coasting  trade.  This  portion  of  our  navigation,  which, 
in  1822,  was  nearly  equal  to  that  engaged  in  foreign  trade,  and 
which  must  increase  rapidly,  has  no  competition  to  dread.  It 
enjoys  a  monopoly.  It  will,  therefore,  sustain  no  loss  in  conse- 
quence of  the  additional  duties,  because,  in  proportion  as  you 
enhance  the  price  of  the  vessel,  you  will  increase  the  freight. 
1  ne  case  might  be  different,  if  foreign  competition  were  not  alto- 
gether excluded.  Would  it  not,  then,  be  just,  that  this  portion 
of  our  tonnage  should  be  compelled  to  use  the  hemp  and  iron  of 
our  own  production,  even  at  an  advanced  price?  We  have 
established  a  prohibitory  system  in  its  favor — should  not,  then, 
the  same  rule  be  adopted  in  favor  of  our  farmers  and  manufac- 
turers, at  least  so  far  as  respects  the  hemp  and  iron  necessary 
in  the  construction  and  repair  of  the  vessels  which  it  employs? 
The  bill  before  the  House,  however,  instead  of  proceeding 
thus  far,  only  imposes  a  small  additional  duty  upon  these 
articles,  and  yet  it  has  been  denounced,  as  though  it  would  pros- 
trate the  navigation  of  the  country. 

I  admit,  said  Mr.  B.,  that  our  foreign  tonnage  must  enter 
into  competition  with  the  world,  and,  therefore,  it  stands  upon 
a  different  basis  from  that  employed  in  our  coasting  trade. 
Under  these  circumstances,  can  it  endure  the  proposed  additional 
duties?  I  answer  boldly  in  the  affirmative.  The  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Webster)  has  stated,  that  all  the  mate- 
rials of  ship  building,  except  the  timber,  are  cheaper  in  England 
than  in  this  country. 

This  may  be,  and  no  doubt  is  the  case.     But  is  not  timber 


1824]  SPEECH  ON  THE  TARIFF  111 

the  chief,  and  by  far  the  most  expensive  material  in  the  construc- 
tion of  a  ship?  In  England  they  are  compelled  to  purchase  this 
article  in  foreign  countries,  and  to  pay  the  heavy  expense  of  its 
transportation ;  whilst  we  possess  it  in  abundance  at  home.  The 
consequence  is,  that  a  ship  of  the  same  tonnage  may  be  built 
much  cheaper  in  this  country  than  in  England.  We  have  the 
testimony  of  the  Mercantile  Society  of  New  York  to  this  effect. 
The  Committee  of  Manufactures,  before  they  reported  their  bill 
to  this  House  in  January,  1821,  addressed  certain  questions  to 
that  Society,  two  of  which,  with  their  answers,  I  will  take  leave 
to  read  to  the  House : 

Question.  What  is  the  cost  of  a  British  ship  of  say  300  tons?  What  of 
an  American  of  the  same  force  and  burden;  and,  generally,  the  difference  in 
the  price  of  shipping,  by  the  ton,  in  each  country,  completely  equipped? 

Answer.  A  British  ship  of  300  tons,  equipped  for  sea,  will  cost  $24,000, 
or  $80  per  ton.  An  American  ship  of  the  same  quality,  will  cost  $18,000  or 
$60  per  ton. 

Question.  The  quantity  of  iron  and  cordage  to  the  100  tons  of  shipping? 

Answer.  It  will  require  4  tons  of  iron,  1,500  lbs.  of  copper  bolts,  4^  tons 
cordage,  and  20  bolts  of  duck  to  the  100  tons. 

In  answer  to  another  question,  the  same  Society  state,  that 
"  foreign  vessels  would  not  have  a  preference,  in  our  ports,  over 
American  built  vessels,  unless  at  a  reduction  in  freight  of  25 
per  cent,  or  advantages  equivalent,  at  the  port  of  destination." 

Thus,  it  appears  that  the  additional  duty  of  $7.50  per  ton, 
proposed  upon  iron  by  the  bill,  as  reported,  on  a  ship  of  300 
tons  burden,  would  amount  only  to  $90,  and  that  upon  hemp 
would  be  equal  to  about  $200.  How,  then,  sir,  can  this  addi- 
tional duty  of  $290  upon  a  ship  of  300  tons,  seriously  injure, 
much  less  destroy,  our  navigation?  Is  it  possible  we  can,' in  the 
slightest  degree,  be  alarmed  by  such  a  clamor,  when  we  consider 
that  a  vessel  of  this  description  now  costs,  in  England,  our  great 
rival  in  navigation,  $6,000  more  than  it  does  in  our  country? 

It  has  been  urged,  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts, 
(Mr.  Webster,)  against  the  proposed  additional  duties  on  hemp 
and  iron,  that  if  a  sufficient  quantity  of  these  articles  to  supply 
the  domestic  demand,  were  produced  in  this  country,  that  our 
navigating  interest  would  lose  their  freight  from  Russia  and 
Sweden.  Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  has  it  come  to  this?  Shall  we  be 
compelled  to  purchase  articles  in  foreign  countries  for  no  other 
reason  but  to  increase  the  employment  for  our  navigation  ?  Are 
all  the  other  interests  of  the  country  to  be  sacrificed,  that  the 


112  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

welfare  of  this  one  may  be  promoted?  I  trust  not.  It  appears 
to  me  that  the  bare  statement  of  this  argument  is  its  best  refuta- 
tion. We  are  asked  to  buy  hemp  and  iron  from  foreigners — we 
are  called  upon  to  transport  our  wealth  to  distant  countries  to  pay 
for  these  articles — and  for  what  reason?  Not  that  we  cannot 
produce  them  in  abundance  for  ourselves ;  not  that  we  need  them ; 
but  simply  because  the  favored  class  of  our  citizens  concerned 
in  navigation  want  to  enjoy  the  advantages  resulting  from  their 
carriage.  You  must,  sir,  purchase  the  merchandise,  that  they 
may  receive  the  freight.  I  am  glad  the  gentleman  has  come 
out  boldly  and  avowed  this  position. 

After  what  I  have  already  said,  it  will  be  necessary  I  should 
add  a  few  words  only,  concerning  the  Navy ;  because  it  is  mani- 
fest that  it  cannot  be  injured  by  the  additional  duties  upon  hemp 
and  iron,  if  I  have  taken  a  correct  view  of  their  operation  upon 
our  ship  building  and  our  navigation.  I  feel  myself  constrained, 
however,  to  make  one  or  two  observations  on  this  subject. 

I  am  a  sincere  friend  to  the  Navy.  One  of  the  earliest 
political  maxims  impressed  upon  my  mind  was,  that  it  would 
be  our  most  safe  and  natural  bulwark  against  foreign  invasion. 
This  opinion  has  been  confirmed  by  the  victories  which  it  achieved 
during  the  late  war — victories  which  have  equally  covered  both 
itself  and  the  nation  with  glory.  I  would,  therefore,  warn  its 
true  friends  to  have  a  care  how  they  introduce  it  into  every  de- 
bate upon  the  subject  of  this  tariff.  Like  all  the  other  institu- 
tions of  this  country,  it  must  depend,  for  its  support,  upon  public 
opinion.  Withdraw  that  from  it,  and  it  must  and  will  sink. 
Are  those  gentlemen,  then,  its  genuine  friends  who  wield  it  as 
the  chief  weapon  of  opposition  against  the  present  bill? 

If,  whenever  any  measure  calculated  to  promote  the  domestic 
industry  of  the  country,  and  to  benefit  its  landed  interest,  shall 
be  introduced  into  Congress,  the  cry  is  resounded,  that  it  cannot 
be  adopted,  because  thereby  you  may  injure  the  Navy;  the 
people  will  at  last  begin  to  believe  that  there  is  something  incom- 
patible between  their  prosperity  and  its  existence.  If  they  shall 
at  any  time  be  impressed  with  this  conviction,  which  I  trust  in 
God  they  never  may,  but  to  which  the  course  of  argument  that  has 
been  pursued  by  the  enemies  of  this  bill  directly  leads,  its  swift 
destruction  will  be  the  inevitable  consequence.  The  people  will 
not  continue  to  sustain  an  institution  which  they  have  been  taught 
to  believe  stands  as  a  perpetual  barrier  against  the  adoption  of  any 
system,  calculated  to  encourage  the  agriculture  and  manufactures 


1824]  NAVIGATION  OF  WESTERN  RIVERS  113 

of  the  country,  and  for  the  promotion  of  whose  glory  their  own 
welfare  must  be  the  sacrifice.  The  Navy  has  nothing  to  fear  ex- 
cept from  such  friends  and  from  itself.  Recent  events  have 
alarmed  its  true  friends  with  serious  apprehensions  that  it  has 
become  intoxicated  with  prosperity,  and  has  been  relaxing  in 
discipline.  If,  at  this  moment,  when  such  impressions  are  abroad 
throughout  the  land,  it  shall  be  made  the  instrument  by  which 
this  bill  shall  be  defeated,  and  you  should  pass  the  one  now  on 
your  table  creating  a  magnificent  establishment  of  vice  admirals 
and  rear  admirals,  the  consequence  may  be  justly  dreaded. 
Should  these  measures  not  shake  its  standing  in  the  opinion  of  the 
people,  I  confess  for  one  I  shall  be  disappointed.  Thanking  the 
House  for  their  attention,  I  shall  not  trouble  them  longer  upon 
the  subject,  having  already  said  much  more  than  I  intended  when 
I  rose. 


REMARKS,  MAY  7,  8,  10,  AND   11,  1824, 

ON  THE  NAVIGATION  OF  WESTERN  RIVERS.1 

[May  7.]  The  House  took  up  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  upon  the  bill  making  an  appropriation  towards 
removing  the  sand  bars  and  obstructions  to  the  bed  of  the  Missis- 
sippi, Ohio,  and  Missouri  rivers,  and  the  question  being  upon 
agreeing  to  the  amendment,  which  introduces  a  substitute  for  the 
original  bill — 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  objected  to  the  amendment, 
as  too  far  enlarging  its  extent,  and  leaving  it  without  a  sufficiently 
definite  object.  If  a  system  of  internal  improvement  were  to  be 
adopted  by  the  General  Government,  he  should  not  be  hostile  to 
the  object  of  this  bill  as  a  part  of  it.  Considering  this  amend- 
ment as  not  sufficiently  specific,  or  guarded,  he  should,  if  it 
succeeded,  be  obliged,  under  present  impressions,  to  vote  against 
the  bill. 


[May  8.]  Mr.  Buchanan,  that  he  might  be  distinctly  under- 
stood as  to  how  far  he  was  willing  to  go  on  the  subject,  stated 
the  comparative  merits  of  the  bill,  and  the  amendment  now  under 
consideration.     By  the  bill,  an  experiment  was  to  be  made  in 

Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong.  1  Sess.  1824,  II.  2578,  2583,  2584,  2586- 
2588,  2596,  2597. 
8 


114  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

removing  a  sand  bar;  if  successful,  it  was  to  be  followed  up 
by  other  similar  operations;  if  not,  the  attempt  was  to  be  aban- 
doned. The  amendment,  however,  reported  by  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  was  as  indefinite  in  its  terms  as  language  could 
make  it;  it  pledged  the  Government  to  proceed  to  remove  every 
obstruction  to  navigation  from  the  town  of  Brownsville  to  the 
mouth  of  the  river  Ohio,  and  down  the  Mississippi,  and  this 
Herculean  work  was  proposed  by  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  which 
could  scarcely  be  understood,  as  read  from  the  Clerk's  table. 
Mr.  B.  said  he  was  friendly  to  the  improvement  of  the  navigation 
of  the  Western  waters,  and  also  to  the  improvement  of  that  of 
the  Susquehannah,  the  Hudson,  and  the  Connecticut,  and  he  was 
willing  that  the  experiment  should  be  made  in  the  Western 
waters,  before  it  is  made  in  the  Susquehannah,  though  he  by 
no  means  admitted  that  they  possessed  superior  claims.  His 
objection  was,  not  to  the  object  of  the  bill,  but  to  the  indefinite 
terms  of  the  amendment. 


Mr.  Buchanan  said,  that  every  amendment  offered  to  the  bill, 
proved  that  a  general  amendment  was  necessary,  embracing  the 
object  of  making  an  experiment  to  improve  the  navigation  of 
the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  rivers,  which  a  decided  majority  of  the 
House  would  be  in  favor  of.  To  allow  of  its  being  properly 
prepared,  he  moved  to  lay  the  bill  on  the  table. 

Which  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  bill  was  ordered  to  lie 
on  the  table  accordingly. 


[May  10.]  On  motion  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania, 
the  House  took  up  the  bill  4<  for  the  improvement  of  the  Ohio  and 
Mississippi  rivers." 

Mr.  Buchanan  offered,  as  an  amendment  to  the  bill,  the 
following: 

That  the  President  of  the  United  States  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  authorized 
to  cause  the  navigation  of  the  Ohio  river  to  be  improved  over  the  following 
sand  bars,  or  either  of  them,  at  his  discretion,  to  wit :  the  sand  bar  which 
crosses  said  river  one  mile  and  a  quarter  below  Flint  island;  the  sand  bar 
two  miles  above  French  island;  the  bar  just  below  Henderson;  the  bar  below 
Straight  island;  the  bar  below  Willow  island,  in  the  Mississippi  bend;  and 
the  bar  opposite  to  Lower  Southerland,  below  Cumberland  island;  and,  for 
the  purpose  of  ascertaining  and  directing  the  best  method  of  carrying  the 
provisions  of  this  act  into  effect,  he  may  employ  any  of  the  engineers  in  the 


1824]  NAVIGATION  OF  WESTERN  RIVERS  1L5 

public  service  which  he  may  deem  proper:  Provided,  nevertheless,  That 
an  experiment  shall  first  be  made  upon  one  of  the  sand  bars,  and  if,  in  his 
judgment,  it  shall  be  successful,  then,  and  not  otherwise,  he  is  hereby  author- 
ized to  cause  experiments  to  be  made  upon  the  remaining  bars. 

Mr.  Stewart,  of  Pennsylvania,  was  opposed  to  this  amend- 
ment of  the  bill,  as  being  calculated  to  embarrass  it,  and,  in  effect, 
to  defeat  it.  He  objected  especially  to  the  proviso,  which  requires 
a  previous  experiment  before  the  appropriation  is  to  be  applied. 
The  obstacles  in  the  Western  rivers  are,  he  said,  so  various  in 
their  kind,  that  an  experiment  on  one  could  not  apply  to  the  rest 
of  them — and  the  President  must  depend  on  the  opinions  of 
others  as  to  the  success  of  the  experiment  when  made,  &c.  He 
preferred  direct  legislation  on  the  subject  to  any  contingent  pro- 
vision. Mr.  S.  went  on  at  considerable  length  to  show  the  pro- 
priety of  the  amendment  adopted  in  Committee,  making  Browns- 
ville the  point  of  commencement  where  the  proposed  improve- 
ment met  the  national  road,  and  rendered  complete  and  entire 
the  chain  of  communication  between  the  East  and  West,  &c, 
stating  a  variety  of  facts  to  show  the  great  advantages  to  the 
West  which  would  result  from  this  measure. 

Mr.  Henry,  of  Kentucky,  replied,  and  advocated  the  amend- 
ment, on  the  ground  that  it  was  of  paramount  importance  to 
obtain  a  recognition  of  the  principle  embraced  in  the  bill,  and  that 
the  particular  modification  of  it  was  not  of  so  great  importance. 
For  the  sake  of  conciliating  the  opinions  of  all  who  were  friendly 
to  the  principle  of  the  bill,  he  was  willing  to  yield  his  own  opinion 
as  to  the  details  of  it;  and,  with  that  view,  he  was  in  favor  of 
the  amendment. 

Mr.  Mallary,  of  Vermont,  moved  to  amend  the  proposed 
amendment  so  as  to  cause  two  experiments  to  be  made  instead 
of  one,  &c. 

Mr.  Buchanan  rejoined — expressed  his  regret  that  the  debate 
should  be  renewed — the  committee's  report  was  confined  to  cer- 
tain bars  in  the  river  which  were  not  of  different  kinds,  but  of 
one  kind ;  and  all  he  wished  was,  that  a  trial  should  be  made  on 
one  of  these  before  money  should  be  expended  on  the  rest. 

Mr.  Trimble  advocated  the  amendment.  He  was  in  favor 
of  an  experiment,  and  thought  it  ought  first  to  be  attempted  on 
the  lower  part  of  the  river. 

Mr.  McArthur  was  indifferent  whether  one  or  two  experi- 
ments were  made  in  the  Mississippi,  but  advocated  the  propriety 
of  extending  the  experiment  to  the  Ohio  river  also,  the  obstruc- 


116  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

tions  in  which  were  quite  as  dangerous  to  property  as  those  in  the 
Mississippi. 

Mr.  Stewart  suggested  to  Mr.  Mallary  to  modify  his  motion 
so  as  to  require  two  "  or  more  "  experiments. 

Mr.  Mallary  did  not  accept  of  the  suggestion. 

Mr.  Kremer  advocated  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Buchanan. 
He  had  had  some  experiments  in  attempts  to  remove  sand  bars 
in  the  Susquehannah,  the  result  of  which  had  been  very  unfavor- 
able. He  therefore  wished  an  experiment  made  on  one  of  those 
in  the  Ohio. 

Mr.  Hogeboom,  of  New  York,  took  similar  ground,  and 
stated  the  difficulties  which  had  been  experienced  in  the  Hudson, 
where  vast  sums  had  been  thrown  away  in  attempts  to  remove 
sand  bars,  without  any  permanent  benefit  from  the  expenditure. 

Mr.  Poinsett,  of  South  Carolina,  suggested  that  there  was 
a  great  difference  between  removing  obstructions  from  sand  in 
tide  rivers  and  those  where  the  stream  always  ran  one  way. 
In  the  former  class  of  streams,  the  removal  of  one  sand  bar  was 
succeeded  by  the  formation  of  others;  but,  in  streams  like  the 
Mississippi  and  the  upper  part  of  the  Ohio,  where  the  water 
always  ran  in  one  direction,  the  case  was  very  different. 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  Mallary,  proposing  two  experiments, 
was  agreed  to — ayes  yy,  noes  71. 

Mr.  Buchanan's  amendment,  as  thus  amended,  was  then  put, 
and  carried. 

The  several  other  amendments,  reported  by  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  were  then  agreed  to. 

Mr.  McArthur  then  offered  an  amendment  in  the  fourth 
section,  to  make  its  commencement  read  as  follows :  "  And  for 
the  purpose  of  improving  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  river, 
from  the  mouth  of  the  Missouri  to  New  Orleans,  and  of  the  Ohio 
river,  from  Pittsburg  to  its  junction  with  the  Mississippi,"  so 
as  to  include  the  Ohio  river  in  the  experiment. 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to,  and  the  bill,  as  amended, 
was  ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading  to-morrow. 


[May  II.]  The  engrossed  bill  making  an  appropriation 
for  improving  the  navigation  of  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  rivers, 
was  read  a  third  time. 

Mr.  Williams,  of  New  York,  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays  on 
the  question  of  its  passage;   and  they  stood,  yeas  155,  nays  60. 


1824]  SALE  OF  LOTS  117 

[After  the  call  was  concluded,  Mr.  Burton  and  Mr. 
Buchanan,  both  accidentally  absent  when  the  yeas  and  nays  were 
called,  wished  to  be  allowed  to  record  their  votes — the  former 
against  the  bill,  the  latter  in  favor  of  it;  but  the  leave  was  not 
granted,  and,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  House,  could  not  be, 
without  unanimous  consent.] 

So  the  bill  was  passed  and  sent  to  the  Senate  for  concurrence. 


REMARKS,  MAY  18,  1824, 

ON  A  RESOLUTION    RELATING  TO  THE  SALE  OF  LOTS  IN  THE 
CITY  OF   WASHINGTON^ 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  expressed  his  surprise  at 
the  course  of  the  debate.  The  evidence  on  which  the  grovelling 
and  unworthy  charge  of  peculation  was  now  attempted  to  be 
brought  against  the  first  officer  of  the  Republic  had  been  in  the 
possession  of  a  committee  of  this  House  ever  since  last  winter. 
He  expressed  a  high  sentiment  of  respect  for  the  character  of 
Mr.  Monroe,  and  thought  that  he  was  the  very  last  person  against 
whom  the  charge  of  an  avaricious  love  of  money,  and  base  col- 
lusion with  a  subordinate  officer,  would  ever  be  brought,  or  could 
ever  be  substantiated.  He  trusted  this  House,  at  this  late  period, 
would  not  enter  into  another  investigation,  probably  of  groundless 
charges. 


Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong,  i  Sess.  1824,  II.  2614. 

A  committee  of  the  House,  May  18,  1824,  reported  a  resolution  calling 
upon  the  President  for  "a  full  and  complete  statement"  as  to  the  sale  of 
public  lots  in  Washington  and  the  application  of  the  proceeds. 

In  a  letter  to  Madison  of  December  13,  1824,  Monroe,  referring  to  his 
losses  in  the  diplomatic  service  and  to  the  allowances  which  should  be  made 
to  him  by  the  government  to  compensate  him  for  his  expenditures,  said :  "  It 
is  my  intention  to  bring  the  subject  before  Congress,  with  a  view  to  give  the 
explanations  necessary  before  my  retirement,  and  to  leave  them  to  be  recurred 
to,  at  another  Session,  when  decided  on.  I  have  another,  and  much  stronger 
motive  for  inviting  the  attention  of  Congress  to  a  concern  relating  to  myself. 
An  attempt  has  been  made  to  injure  me  in  another  form,  with  which,  as  it 
has  been  treated  on  in  Congress,  you  are,  I  presume,  somewhat  acquainted. 
I  cannot  withdraw  and  leave  this  unnoticed.  I  intend  to  bring  both  subjects 
under  consideration,  with  a  view  to  do  myself  justice,  and  to  protect  myself, 
after  I  am  gone,  from  malignant  aspersion.  The  attempt  referred  to  was 
made  in  the  last  two  Sessions,  by  a  committee  in  each,  or  rather  under  the 
sanction  of  such  an  appointment,  and  who  pursued  the  object  with  great 
industry  and  system,  as  well  as  malignity."  (Hamilton's  Writings  of  James 
Monroe,   VII.   51,   53"54-) 


118  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1824 

REMARKS,   MAY   18,   1824, 

ON  THE  DAY  OF  ADJOURNMENT.1 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  entirely  concurred  in  most 
of  the  views  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware,  but  he  differed 
from  him  as  to  his  conclusion.  From  the  information  which 
had  been  given  to  the  House,  by  the  gentleman  from  Illinois,  it 
was  perfectly  evident,  and  must  strike  the  mind  of  every  body, 
that  Mr.  Edwards 2  cannot  be  expected  to  arrive  here  before 
the  fourth  or  fifth  of  June.  If  the  House  waited  for  his  arrival 
at  all,  consistency  and  a  sense  of  duty  would  require  them  to 
remain  in  session  until  he  was  examined,  that  the  information 
which  he  possesses  may  be  eviscerated  and  laid  before  the  House. 
On  a  moderate  calculation,  this  will  take  to  the  tenth  of  June; 
and,  said  Mr.  B.,  I  ask  whether  we  will  delay  our  adjournment 
till  that  day  on  this  account,  or  whether  we  shall  not  rather 
adjourn  at  an  otherwise  convenient  season  ?  If  I  thought,  that,  to 
await  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Edwards  was  of  any  importance  to  the 
country,  or  to  the  distinguished  officer  whose  conduct  is  impli- 
cated by  the  charges,  I  would  remain  here  at  any  sacrifice.  But  I 
am  not  of  that  opinion.  When  Mr.  Edwards  presented  his 
charges  to  this  House,  he  referred  for  the  foundation  and  support 
of  them  to  documentary  testimony,  and  to  that  alone.  That 
testimony,  with  the  charges,  is  in  the  possession  of  as  able  and 
impartial  committee  as  was  ever  raised  in  any  public  body.  I 
am  persuaded  that  the  committee  is,  or  can  be  in  one  or  two  days, 
ready  to  report  upon  that  testimony.  Now,  I  ask,  how  can  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be  implicated  by  an  adjournment,  with- 
out waiting  for  Mr.  Edwards?  The  proofs  are  here;  the  com- 
mittee is  diligently  engaged  in  the  examination  of  them,  and  are 
ready  (or  can  be  in  a  short  time)  to  make  their  report;  and  I 
protest  against  the  idea  of  the  House  having  committed  itself,  or 
pledged  itself  in  any  way,  to  wait  for  Mr.  Edwards.  The  House 
has  not,  in  any  way,  confirmed  the  decision  of  that  committee  to 
send  for  Mr.  Edwards.  At  the  time  this  accusation  of  Mr.  Ed- 
wards was  brought  to  the  House,  I  tried  three  several  times  to 
get  the  floor,  to  move  to  lay  it  on  the  table  for  one  day.     Had 


1  Annals  of  Congress,  18  Cong,  i  Sess.  1824,  II.  2651-2652. 

2  Ninian  Edwards,  formerly  a  Senator  from  Illinois,  who  complained  of 
the  injustice  done  him  in  a  report  of  Mr.  Crawford,  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, on  the  deposit  of  public  money  in  State  banks. 


1825]  TO  THOMAS  ELDER  119 

this  been  then  done,  I  am  persuaded  we  should  have  had  no 
further  trouble  with  it.  Believing  that  the  House  is  not  pledged, 
and  that  it  is  not  expected  of  us  to  wait  for  Mr.  Edwards;  and 
that,  as  regards  our  legislative  business,  we  shall  be  perfectly- 
prepared  to  adjourn  on  Monday,  I  will  propose  that  day.  In  any 
event,  the  motion  of  my  friend  from  Maryland  ought  not  to  pre- 
vail. If  the  House  determine  to  wait  and  examine  Mr.  Edwards, 
they  ought  to  adopt  the  views  of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware, 
and  not  at  this  time  fix  upon  any  day  for  the  adjournment.  If 
otherwise,  the  earliest  day  that  had  been  named  should  be  taken. 


REMARKS,  DECEMBER  21,  1824, 

ON  A  BILL  FOR  OCCUPYING  THE  MOUTH  OF  THE  COLUMBIA  RIVER.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  moved  to  strike  out  the  4th  section,  which 
is  as  follows :  "  That  the  President  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  directed 
to  open  a  port  of  entry  within  the  said  territory,  whenever  he  shall 
deem  the  public  good  may  require  it,  and  shall  appoint  such 
officers  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  same;  after  which,  the 
revenue  laws  of  the  United  States  shall  extend  to,  and  be  in  full 
force  in  said  territory;  "  to  which,  (though  on  all  other  grounds 
highly  approving  it,)  he  objected,  as  interfering  with  the  treaty 
with  Great  Britain.  By  that  treaty,  a  free  and  open  trade  is 
guarantied,  in  common,  to  both  powers,  for  a  certain  term  of 
years,  which  is  diametrically  in  opposition  to  the  establishment 
of  a  port  of  entry,  and  the  consequent  demand  of  duties  from 
British  traders  to  the  Oregon. 


1825. 

TO  THOMAS  ELDER.2 

Washington  2.  Jan :  1825. 
Dear  Sir/ 

Being  released  this  day  from  the  cares  &  the  follies  of  the 
world,  I  sit  down  with  pleasure  to  devote  a  portion  of  my  time, 


1  Register  of  Debates,  18  Cong.  2  Sess.  1825,  I.  36. 

2  Buchanan  Papers,  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.  The  person  to 
whom  this  letter  was  addressed  was  then  a  lawyer  in  Harrisburg,  Pennsyl- 
vania. 


120  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

for  the  purpose  of  making  you  acquainted  with  the  politics  of  this 
City. 

You  no  doubt  feel  a  deep  interest  in  the  presidential  question : 
&  in  my  opinion  the  chances  are  much  in  favor  of  Gen :  Jackson. 
I  write  confidentially,  &  if  I  were  to  inform  you  that  I  consider 
his  election  certain,  it  would  not  be,  what  I  believe  myself. 

The  friends  of  Crawford,  consisting  of  the  States  of 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Georgia  &  Delaware  are  apparently 
as  determined  &  speak  with  as  much  confidence  of  his  election 
as  they  did  last  winter.  This  however,  at  least  so  far  as  respects 
the  knowing  ones,  can  be  no  more  than  a  mere  pretence.  It  serves 
them  as  an  apology  for  not  expressing  a  preference  between 
Adams  &  Jackson. 

They  believe  they  hold  the  balance  of  power  in  their  own 
hands  &  no  doubt  they  wish  to  use  it  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
aggrandize  themselves  &  their  friends.  We  have  daily  rumors 
that  a  coalition  is  forming  between  them  &  the  friends  of 
Adams. 

It  is  thought  &  in  my  opinion  with  truth,  that  if  Clay  were 
to  exert  his  influence,  he  might  give  the  Votes  of  Ohio  &  Louisi- 
ana to  Adams. 

Some  of  the  friends  of  Jackson  from  our  State  are  afraid  that 
a  combination  will  be  formed  between  Adams,  Crawford  and 
Clay :  and  that  the  two  latter  will  be  in  the  Cabinet  of  the  former. 
These  men  however  are  the  warm  friends  of  Calhoun,  &  they 
must  perceive  that  the  next  contest  in  Pennsylvania,  if  Clay 
should  behave  himself  well,  will  be  between  him  &  Calhoun. 
They  are  therefore  willing  to  believe  any  thing  which  tends  to 
make  Clay  unpopular.  His  eyes  are  wide  open  upon  the  subject, 
&  he  is  fully  aware  in  what  manner  he  may  please  Pennsylvania. 
He  must  also  know  that  if  Adams  were  elected  in  opposition  to 
the  will  of  the  people  by  such  a  combination  both  he  &  the  mem- 
bers of  his  cabinet  would  at  once  become  the  objects  of  public 
hatred  &  contempt.  For  my  own  part  I  think  Clay  will  act 
properly ;  he  may  be  the  better  for  being  watched.  He  is  a  man 
of  soul. 

The  friends  of  Jackson  move  on  with  determined  firmness 
&  at  the  same  time  with  a  conciliating  manner  towards  all. 
Their  chief  is  a  man  whose  integrity  is  such  that  no  person  would 
dare  to  talk  to  him  about  conciliating  the  friends  of  the  other 
candidates  by  holding  out  to  them  any  offers  of  Office.  His 
declaration  is,  "  if  I  should  be  elected  I  will  go  into  office  perfectly 


1825]  REMARKS  ON  WAR  CLAIMS  121 

free  &  untramm[ell]ed."     A  nobler  spirit  than  he  possesses  ani- 
mates no  human  being. 

In  my  opinion  the  friends  of  Crawford  cannot  transfer 
Georgia  &  North  Carolina  to  Adams :  and  indeed  I  believe  that 
all  plots  against  old  Hickory  will  fail. 

The  States  decidedly  for  him  are — New  Jersey,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Indiana,  (I  think)  Kentucky,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  Ten- 
nessee, South  Carolina,  &  there  is  not  much  of  Ohio  &  Louisi- 
ana. 

The  States  decidedly  for  Adams  are  the  6  New  England 
States.  New  York,  Illinois,  Maryland  &  Missouri  are  doubtful. 
My  own  opinion  is  that  the  two  former  will  go  for  Adams  &  the 
two  latter  for  Jackson. 

You  thus  have  the  whole  ground.  The  prospect  is  hopeful, 
but  it  is  not  certain.  I  consider  the  chances  in  favor  of  Jackson 
as  two  to  one. 

There  is  very  little  excitement  at  present  in  Congress  con- 
cerning the  presidential  question.  If  however  any  thing  corrupt 
or  improper  should  be  attempted  it  is  a  Calm  preceding  a  dreadful 
storm. 

There  will  [be]  little  or  no  legislation  here  during  the  pres- 
ent winter. 

I  wish  when  you  get  an  hour's  leisure  you  would  sit  down 
&  write  me  a  letter  on  State  politicks.  Please  give  my  kindest 
&  best  respects  to  Mrs.  Elder  &  believe  me  to  be  ever  your 
sincere  friend, 

James  Buchanan. 
Thomas  Elder  Esq. 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  3,  1825, 

ON  THE  BILL  FOR  THE  RELIEF  OF  THE    NIAGARA  SUFFERERS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  said,  he  rose  to  make  a  few 
observations  on  the  bill  before  the  committee,  which  he  would  not 
have  done,  had  his  views  of  the  subject  been  exhibited  by  any 
other  gentleman.  He  said,  he  would  state,  as  a  clear  proposition, 
which  had  not  been  much  disputed  in  the  course  of  the  discussion, 
that  this  government  was  bound,  as  a  matter  of  right,  to 
indemnify  individuals  for  the  destruction  of  their  property  by  the 


1  Register  of  Debates,  18  Cong.  2  Sess.  1824-1825,  I.  121-123. 


122  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

enemy,  provided  such  destruction  were  in  pursuance  of  the  rules 
of  civilized  warfare.  If  that  were  not  the  case,  then  we  were  not 
compelled  by  any  principles  of  public  law  to  make  such  an 
indemnity. — Every  motive  of  policy  would  forbid  it. 

Then,  said  Mr.  B.  the  question  is,  was  the  devastation  of 
the  whole  Niagara  frontier  and  the  burning  of  Buffalo,  acts 
justified  by  the  laws  of  war?  Can  this  be  a  subject  of  serious 
doubt  at  the  present  day?  If  we  pass  this  bill,  we  proclaim  that 
our  denunciations  of  the  conduct  of  the  British  army  on  that 
frontier,  which  has  met  the  reprobation  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  and,  he  trusted,  of  the  whole  civilized  world,  were 
unjust  and  unfounded.  The  Congress  of  the  United  States  will 
declare,  that  the  acts  of  that  army  were  measures  of  lawful  war, 
and,  as  such,  they  were  bound  to  grant  indemnity  to  the  sufferers. 
This  is  the  principle  upon  which  the  bill  has  been  rested  by  its 
friends,  and  the  only  principle  upon  which  it  can  rest. 

Let  us  then,  said  Mr.  B.  inquire  into  the  justice  of  this 
proposition.  Had  the  enemy  a  right  to  burn  and  destroy  the 
whole  Niagara  frontier,  because  most  of  the  private  houses  were 
occupied  as  barracks  and  places  of  military  deposite?  On  this 
subject  he  concurred  generally  with  the  views  of  his  friend  from 
Virginia,  (Mr.  Mercer. )  If  this  were  established  as  a  correct  prin- 
ciple of  national  law,  the  consequences  would  be  dreadful,  and  in 
many  cases,  the  general  devastation  oi;  the  private  property  of 
unoffending  individuals  must  inevitably  ensue.  War  would  no 
longer  be  a  civil  game  between  independent  sovereigns;  but  each 
individual  of  the  hostile  nations  would  be  liable  to  ruin  by  the 
destruction  of  his  property.  I  will  illustrate  my  views,  said  Mr.  B. 
by  an  example.  Let  an  enemy  land  upon  our  shores  and  drive 
our  army  beyond  the  line  of  our  fortifications,  what  would  then 
be  the  consequence?  Private  houses  must  of  necessity  be  used 
as  places  of  military  deposite  and  as  a  shelter  for  the  soldiers. 
Once,  then,  establish  the  principle  embraced  by  this  bill,  and 
you  justify  an  enemy  in  destroying  and  laying  waste  the  whole 
country  over  which  he  advances.  Nay,  you  do  more;  you  offer 
him  the  strongest  temptation  to  commit  such  outrages.  Such, 
said  Mr.  B.  has  never  been  the  practice  of  civilized  nations ;  and 
he  trusted  this  government  would  never  sanction  the  propriety  of 
such  outrageous  acts  on  the  part  of  an  enemy. 

Mr.  B.  said  there  was  another  view  which  this  subject  pre- 
sents, which  adds  the  guilt  of  perfidy  to  that  of  the  violation  of 
the  laws  of  war.     Whilst  the  village  of  Buffalo  still  presented  a 


1825]  REMARKS  ON  WAR  CLAIMS  123 

hostile  front  to  the  enemy,  a  capitulation  was  entered  into  by 
Col.  Chapin  of  our  army,  with  Gen.  Rial,  who  commanded  the 
British  forces.  By  that  instrument,  it  was  solemnly  agreed  "  that 
private  property  and  private  persons  should  not  be  molested  or 
injured."  Upon  the  faith  of  this  capitulation  the  British  forces 
entered  the  town.  The  testimony  proves,  that,  before  its  date, 
they  were  well  acquainted  with  the  fact,  that  a  large  body  of 
the  United  States'  troops  had  been  quartered  there,  and  that  many 
of  the  houses  were  places  of  military  deposite.  With  a  full 
knowledge  of  those  circumstances,  they  entered  into  the  capitula- 
tion :  What  was  then  their  subsequent  conduct  ?  Instead  of 
separating  the  military  stores  from  the  houses  in  which  they 
were  deposited;  instead  of  destroying  public  and  saving  private 
property,  they  involved  the  whole  village  in  One  common  con- 
flagration. At  the  most  inclement  season  of  the  year,  in  a  north- 
ern climate,  regardless  of  their  faith,  they  set  fire  to  the  town, 
and  drove  its  inhabitants  to  seek  shelter  and  bread  from  the  com- 
passion of  strangers.  And  this  under  pretence  of  what  they  well 
knew  before  the  capitulation,  that  there  were  military  stores 
deposited  in  many  of  the  private  houses.  And  yet  this  destruc- 
tion is  attempted  to  be  justified  by  the  laws  of  war  established 
among  civilized  nations. 

Again,  said  Mr.  B.  pass  this  bill,  and  no  member  of  the 
committee  can  form  any  just  estimate  of  the  number  and  amount 
of  the  claims  to  which  it  will  give 'birth.  The  inhabitants  of  the 
Niagara  frontier  are  neither  better  nor  worse  than  their  fellow 
countrymen.  This  bill  is  chiefly  intended  for  their  benefit.  It 
is  to  embrace  a  tract  of  country  of  considerable  extent,  within 
which  the  whole  mass  of  people  feel  a  common  interest  in  ob- 
taining from  the  Government  as  much  as  possible.  Self  love,  and 
the  prejudices  which  necessarily  result  from  it,  will  induce  them 
to  bring  every  case  in  their  power  within  the.  language  of  the 
law,  and  to  place  the  highest  value  possible  upon  the  property 
which  was  destroyed.  This  bill  is  without  limit,  and  without 
bound;  and  what  will  be  the  extent  of  the  appropriation  neces- 
sary to  carry  it  into  effect,  the  committee  cannot  even  conjecture. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  I  may  be  asked  if  I  am  unwilling  to  afford 
these  sufferers  any  relief?  I  answer,  without  hesitation,  I  am 
not.  They  have  claims  upon  our  generosity,  not  upon  our 
justice.  I  would  mitigate  their  calamities,  not  indemnify  them 
for  their  losses.  They  have  suffered  more  than  the  common 
misfortunes  of  war ;  they  are  therefore  entitled  to  the  compassion 


124  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

of  a  paternal  government.  I  would  grant  them  such  relief  as, 
whilst  it  would  not  be  too  burdensome  on  the  Treasury,  nor 
produce  those  ruinous  consequences  to  the  nation  which  must 
result  from  establishing  as  a  principle  that  we  will  pay  the  value 
of  private  property  destroyed  by  the  enemy  in  violation  of  the 
laws  of  war,  might  yet  mitigate  their  sufferings.  I  believe  I 
know  several  gentlemen  of  the  committee  to  be  of  the  same 
opinion.  I  would  give  them  1 50,000  or  200,000  dollars,  to  be  dis- 
tributed pro  rata,  in  full  satisfaction  of  all  demands.  If,  said 
Mr.  B.,  you  adopt  a  principle  of  this  nature,  you  will  at  once 
know  the  extent  of  your  donation,  and  you  will  make  it  the  inter- 
est of  the  sufferers  themselves  to  watch  over  the  claims  of  each 
other,  and  see  that  none  are  established  except  those  which 
are  supported  by  principles  of  justice. 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  7,  1825, 

ON  THE   BILL  FOR  THE  PUNISHMENT  OF  CERTAIN  CRIMES 
AGAINST  THE  UNITED  STATES.1 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  said  he  highly  approved  of 
the  general  features  of  this  bill.  It  was  a  disgrace  to  our  system 
of  laws,  that  no  provision  had  ever  been  made  for  the  punishment 
of  the  crimes  which  it  embraced,  when  committed  in  places  within 
the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States.  He  thought, 
however,  that  the  penalty  of  death  was  too  severe  to  be  annexed 
to  the  description  of  crimes  contained  in  the  section  under  con- 
sideration. 

The  power  of  punishment  vested  in  Government,  said  Mr. 
B.  results  from  the  right  of  self-defence.  Vengeance  belongs 
not  to  man.  We  should,  therefore,  be  careful  not  to  inflict  punish- 
ments of  a  nature  more  severe  than  the  safety  of  society  requires. 
In  all  cases  where  the  character  of  the  crime  does  not  involve  such 
a  degree  of  moral  depravity  in  the  criminal  as  to  preclude  a 
reasonable  hope  of  his  reformation,  it  would  be  both  unjust  and 
cruel,  in  the  extreme,  to  deprive  him  of  life.  These  principles 
need  not  be  either  illustrated  or  enforced  before  this  committee. 

What,  then,  said  Mr.  B.  is  the  nature  of  the  crimes  embraced 
by  this  section?  One  clause  of  it  declares  that  the  passenger 
on  board  of  any  vessel  who  steals  and  carries  away  from  it  goods 


Register  of  Debates,  18  Cong.  2  Sess.  1824-1825,  I.  157-158. 


1825]  MR.  MONROE'S  ACCOUNTS  125 

of  the  value  of  iooo  dollars,  shall  suffer  death.  Is  not  this  punish- 
ment out  of  all  proportion  with  the  crime  ?  Is  it  necessary  for  the 
safety  of  society  that  death  should  be  the  penalty  in  such  a  case? 
Is  it  possible  that  a  provision  of  this  nature  can,  in  the  present 
improved  state  of  society,  be  incorporated  in  our  penal  code? 
He  believed  not.  The  other  crimes  enumerated  in  the  section, 
although  more  aggravated  than  the  one  just  mentioned,  are 
chiefly  offences  against  the  right  of  property;  and  a  distinction 
has  generally  been  made  between  such  crimes  and  those  which 
are  malum  in  se,  or  highly  criminal  by  the  laws  of  nature. 

What,  said  Mr.  B.  is  the  consequence  of  annexing  cruel 
punishment  to  crimes?  The  people  of  the  United  States  are 
humane  and  compassionate,  and  when  the  feelings  of  society 
are  in  opposition  to  the  laws,  you  cannot  carry  them  into  execu- 
tion. The  humanity  of  juries  is  interposed  between  the  criminal 
and  punishment.  The  highest  crimes  thus  often  pass  unpun- 
ished; and  the  chance  of  escape  is  in  proportion  to  the  enormity 
of  the  offence.  Even  after  conviction  and  judgment,  we  know 
by  experience  how  difficult  it  is  to  get  the  sentence  of  the  law 
executed.  It  is  the  interest  of  society,  therefore,  that,  in  the 
degree  of  punishment,  justice  should  be  tempered  with  mercy. 

Mr.  B.  observed,  he  had  been  a  member  of  the  committee 
which  reported  the  bill.  He  might  have  moved  this  amendment 
in  the  committee,  but  had  neglected  to  do  so.  He  trusted  that 
the  honorable  Chairman,  (Mr.  Webster,)  to  whom  we  were  so 
much  indebted  for  the  bill,  would  not  object  to  it. 

Mr.  B.  then  moved  to  strike  out,  at  the  end  of  the  section 
now  under  consideration,  the  words — "  be  deemed  guilty  of 
piracy  and  felony,  and  shall,  on  conviction  thereof,  suffer  death ;  " 
and  insert,  in  lieu  thereof,  the  words,  "  be  punishable  by  fine,  not 
exceeding  $5,000,  and  by  imprisonment  not  exceeding  ten  years." 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  11,  1825, 

ON  THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  A  COMMITTEE  TO  EXAMINE  THE 
ACCOUNTS  OF  THE  PRESIDENT.1 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  said,  that,  as  to  himself, 
he  would  rather  the  President  had  exhibited  his  claim  before 
the  House  in  a  precise  and  distinct  form,  and  demanded  its  pay- 


1  Register  of  Debates,  18  Cong.  2  Sess.  1824-1825,  I.  176-177. 


126  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

ment.  He  did  not  conceive  it  necessary  for  the  character  of  that 
distinguished  individual,  that  he  should  request  a  general  in- 
vestigation of  his  pecuniary  transactions  with  the  Government. 
But,  said  he,  that  was  a  proper  subject  for  the  exercise  of  his 
own  discretion;  and  he  has  determined  otherwise.  What,  then, 
is  it  right,  we  should  do? 

A  well  tried,  and  a  faithful  public  servant,  who,  for  eight 
years,  has  occupied  the  most  distinguished  station  in  this  country, 
thinks  it  necessary  for  his  reputation,  to  ask  of  you  a  general 
investigation  into  all  his  pecuniary  transactions  with  the  Govern- 
ment. He  considers  that  his  character  in  this  particular  has  been 
unjustly  assailed ;  and,  about  to  retire  from  office,  he  wishes  it  to 
be  placed  beyond  suspicion  before  the  world.  For  this  purpose  he 
has  requested  of  us  to  inquire  into  his  public  conduct,  so  far  as 
it  regards  his  accounts  with  the  Government.  Can  we,  upon 
any  just  principle,  refuse  this  request?  Certainly  not.  He  has  a 
right  to  demand  it. 

By  what  committee,  then,  shall  this  investigation  be  made? 
Gentlemen  who  think  the  subject  properly  belongs  to  the  com- 
mittee of  claims,  have,  in  my  opinion,  said  Mr.  B.,  taken  a  view 
of  it  much  too  narrow.  It  is  certain  that  the  message  of  the 
President  asserts  the  existence  of  a  claim  against  the  govern- 
ment ;  and  if  this  were  all  which  it  contained,  it  would  be  a  proper 
subject  of  reference  to  the  Committee  of  Claims.  But,  it  is 
equally  certain,  it  proceeds  much  further.  It  asks  an  investiga- 
tion of  his  pecuniary  transactions,  as  a  public  servant,  during 
the  long  series  of  years  to  which  he  has  been  in  the  employ- 
ment of  the  nation.  To  divide  the  message  and  refer  a  portion 
of  it  to  one  standing  committee,  and  a  portion  to  another,  as 
has  been  suggested,  would  separate  into  parts  a  subject  which  is, 
in  its  nature,  entire.  Mr.  B.  therefore,  preferred  its  reference 
to  a  select  committee  which  would  possess  powers  sufficient  to 
grasp  the  whole  subject. 

Again,  said  Mr.  B.,  the  message  seems  to  have  been  mis- 
understood by  gentlemen,  in  regard  to  another  particular.  You 
are  not  asked  to  legislate  upon  it.  No  money  is,  at  this  time, 
demanded  from  you.  The  President  would  not  make  such  a 
request,  whilst  he  stands  in  his  present  relation  to  this  House. 
All  he  asks  is,  that  a  committee  shall  investigate  and  report 
to  the  House  the  testimony  which  he  may  exhibit,  together  with 
his  own  personal  explanations.  After  his  term  of  office  shall 
have  expired,  he  does  not  wish  to  leave  his  retirement  for  the 


1825]  WESTERN  NATIONAL  ROAD  127 

purpose  of  attending  to  this  investigation.  The  message  ex- 
pressly disclaims  any  view  to  legislation  during  the  present  ses- 
sion: it  only  asks  that  such  preliminary  inquiries  may  be  made 
as  will  render  his  personal  attendance  hereafter  unnecessary. 
Said  Mr.  B.  business  of  this  peculiar  nature  certainly  does  not 
properly  belong  to  any  standing  committee  of  this  House.  After 
the  testimony  shall  have  been  reported,  it  may  be  proper,  at  the 
next  session  of  Congress,  to  refer  a  part  of  it  to  one  of  the 
standing  committees,  and  a  part  to  another. 

Mr.  B.  concluded  by  observing,  that  it  would  be  both  unjust 
and  unkind  to  refuse  to  the  President  the  appointment  of  a  select 
committee  upon  the  subject. 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  13,  1825, 

ON  THE  WESTERN    NATIONAL  ROAD.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  that,  since  the  adjournment  of  the 
House  last  evening,  he  had  turned  his  attention  to  the  compact 
between  the  United  States  and  the  state  of  Ohio,  and  he  believed 
if  the  committee  would  indulge  him  for  a  few  minutes,  he  could 
clearly  explain  its  character. 

By  the  terms  of  the  original  compact  of  1802,  five  per  cent, 
of  the  nett  proceeds  of  the  lands  within  the  state  of  Ohio,  were  to 
be  applied  "  to  the  laying  out  and  making  public  roads,  leading 
from  the  navigable  waters  emptying  into  the  Atlantic,  to  the 
Ohio,  to  the  said  State,  and  through  the  same ;  such  roads  to  be 
laid  out  under  the  authority  of  Congress,  with  the  consent  of 
the  several  states  through  which  the  road  shall  pass." 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  compact  gave  to  the  United  States 
exclusive  authority  over  the  application  of  the  whole  of  this  fund. 
The  objects  upon  which  they  were  bound  to  expend  it,  were  of  a 
two  fold  nature.  The  first,  roads  leading  from  the  Atlantic 
waters  to  the  State  of  Ohio ;  and  the  second,  roads  leading  through 
that  State. 

The  people  of  Ohio  believed,  that  the  portion  of  this  fund 
which  was  destined  to  the  construction  of  roads  within  their 
state,  could  be  more  judiciously  and  economically  expended  under 
the  authority  of  their  own  Legislature,  than  by  the  General  Gov- 
ernment.    In  this  opinion,  they  were  certainly  correct.     They, 


1  Register  of  Debates,  18  Cong.  2  Sess.  1824-1825,  I.  206-207. 


128  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

therefore,  asked  Congress  to  grant  them  this  privilege,  and  in 
pursuance  of  their  request,  an  act  was  passed  on  the  3d  March, 
1803,  directing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  pay  to  the  state 
of  Ohio  three  per  cent,  of  the  five  per  cent,  fund,  to  be  applied  by 
their  Legislature  "  to  the  laying  out,  opening  and  making  roads, 
within  the  said  state,  and  to  no  other  purpose  whatever.,, 

Thus  it  will  be  perceived,  that  the  five  per  cent,  fund,  which 
had  originally  been  placed  under  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
General  Government,  was  separated  into  two  parts.  The  two 
per  cent,  of  it  was  retained  by  Congress,  to  be  applied  to  the 
construction  of  roads  between  the  Atlantic  waters  and  the  state 
of  Ohio;  and  the  remaining  three  per  cent,  was  given  to  the 
state  of  Ohio,  at  its  own  request,  to  be  expended  in  making  roads 
through  that  state.  It  is,  therefore,  manifest,  that,  since  1803, 
the  United  States  have  never  been  bound  by  the  compact,  to  make 
any  roads  within  the  state  of  Ohio.  That  obligation  passed  from 
them  to  the  Legislature  of  the  state,  and  three-fifths  of  the  whole 
fund  was  granted  to  them,  to  enable  them  to  fulfil  it.  Out  of  this 
fund  the  state  of  Ohio,  previous  to  the  24th  January  last,  had 
received  the  sum  of  $287,543.94.  With  what  degree  of  force 
then,  or  even  plausibility  it  could  be  contended  by  gentlemen,  that 
Congress  are  bound  by  the  compact  to  make  this  road  within  the 
state  of  Ohio,  Mr.  B.  said,  he  would  cheerfully  leave  for  the  com- 
mittee to  determine. 

Mr.  B.  said  that  the  next  subject  of  inquiry  to  which  he 
wished  to  direct  the  attention  of  the  committee,  was,  the  manner  in 
which  the  United  States  had  executed  the  portion  of  the  trust 
which  remained  to  them.  Have  they  faithfully  applied  the  whole 
of  the  two  per  cent,  which  they  retained,  to  the  construction  of 
roads  between  the  waters  of  the  Atlantic  and  the  state  of  Ohio? 
The  amount  of  it  which  had  resulted  from  the  sale  of  lands  in  that 
state,  prior  to  the  report  from  the  Treasury  during  the  last  ses- 
sion, was  $187,786.31,  and  from  Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Mis- 
sissippi, and  Alabama,  $71,623.11.  The  aggregate  is  $259,- 
409.42. 

Congress  have  expended  upon  the  Cumberland  road  about 
$1,700,000,  or  nearly  seven  times  the  amount  of  the  two  per  cent, 
fund  of  all  these  states.  They  did  not  stop  short  at  a  literal 
compliance  with  the  terms  of  the  compact;  but  have  greatly 
transcended  them,  and  acted  with  the  utmost  liberality  towards 
the  western  people.  That  fund  has  been  already  pledged  to  us  for 
the  repayment  of  more  than  $1,400,000.     No  gentleman  on  this 


1825]        CHESAPEAKE  AND  DELAWARE  CANAL  129 

floor  can,  for  a  moment,  suppose  that  we  shall  ever  receive  from  it 
anything  like  this  amount.  In  order  to  realize  such  a  supposition, 
lands  within  those  states  must  yet  be  sold  to  the  amount  of 
$70,000,000.  Yet,  notwithstanding,  the  present  bill  pledges  this 
very  fund  to  reimburse  the  expense  of  continuing  the  Cumber- 
land road  from  Canton  to  Zanesville.  It  is  certainly  idle  and 
absurd  for  us  to  place  a  pretext  so  flimsy  before  the  public,  in  any 
act  of  legislation.  Gentlemen  who  advocate  this  bill  should  at 
once  abandon  its  defence  upon  the  ground  of  the  two  per  cent, 
fund  and  compact,  and  support  it  upon  the  principle  that  it  is  an 
internal  improvement,  which,  independently  of  these  considera- 
tions, should  be  undertaken  at  this  time  by  the  General  Govern- 
ment. 

Mr.  B.  said  that,  as  he  had  risen  only  to  advance  his  ideas 
respecting  the  compact  with  Ohio,  and  the  manner  in  which  the 
United  States  had  executed  their  trust,  he  would  no  longer,  at 
present,  press  himself  upon  the  attention  of  the  committee.  He 
would  merely  state  as  a  fact,  in  conclusion,  that  the  construction 
of  the  Cumberland  road  had  cost  more  than  $13,000  each  mile. 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  21,  1825, 

ON  THE  CHESAPEAKE  AND  DELAWARE  CANAL.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  rose  to  make  a  short  reply  to  such 
of  the  observations  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York,  (Mr. 
Marvin,)  as  had  not  been  noticed  by  the  gentleman  from  the 
same  State,  (Mr.  Storrs,)  in  the  able  argument  which  he  had  just 
finished. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  (Mr.  Marvin)  commenced 
his  argument,  by  stating,  that  we  had  not  sufficient  information 
upon  the  subject  of  this  canal,  to  enable  us  to  act  wisely.  That 
no  survey  of  the  route  had  been  made  under  the  act  of  the  last 
session,  and  therefore  this  appropriation  was  premature. 

It  was  true,  said  Mr.  B.  that  no  survey  has  been  made  under 
the  act  of  the  last  session;  but  the  reason  is,  that  such  a  survey 
was  wholly  unnecessary.  It  would  have  been  a  vain  labor.  That 
gentleman  has  not  examined  the  evidence  before  the  House  with 
his  usual  care,  or  he  never  would  have  urged  such  an  objection. 
If  he  had  attentively  read  the  report  on  the  subject  of  the  canal. 


"Register  of  Debates,  18  Cong.  2  Sess.  1824-1825,  I.  33i"332. 
9 


130  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

which  has  been  laid  upon  our  tables,  he  would  have  discovered 
that  the  route  had  been  surveyed  and  re-surveyed  again  and  again. 
Sir,  said  Mr.  B.  the  whole  face  of  the  country  between  the  two 
bays  has  been  literally  covered  with  surveys.  After  all  the  infor- 
mation had  been  collected  which  it  was  possible  to  obtain,  so 
prudent  and  so  cautious  were  the  gentlemen  who  had  the  manage- 
ment of  the  Company,  that  they  would  not  finally  fix  the  route  of 
the  canal,  until  the  engineers  of  this  Government  should  give  it 
the  sanction  of  their  approbation.  Application  was  made  to  the 
War  Department  for  their  assistance,  and  it  was  promptly  granted. 
Gen.  Bernard  and  Col.  Totten,  with  the  engineers  of  the  Company, 
carefully  examined  the  different  routes ;  and,  after  much  investiga- 
tion, finally  determined  in  favor  of  that  one,  on  which  the  work 
is  now  progressing. 

This  route,  said  Mr.  B.  was  not  established  in  accordance 
either  with  the  interest  or  the  wishes  of  a  majority  of  the  people 
of  Delaware.  The  citizens  both  of  Wilmington  and  of  Newcastle 
were  opposed  to  its  present  location. 

It  is  too  far  south  essentially  to  promote  their  prosperity. 
The  truth  is,  its  location  was  determined  much  more  with  the 
view  of  making  it,  what  it  really  will  be,  the  principal  link  in  the 
grand  chain  of  internal  navigation  through  the  Atlantic  states, 
than  to  subserve  the  commercial  purposes  of  the  cities  and  towns 
in  its  vicinity.  Had  this  alone  been  the  object  of  the  Company, 
it  might  have  been  accomplished  for  almost  half  a  million  less 
than  must  now  be  expended.  The  work  is  truly  national  in  its 
character,  and  it  has  been  projected  on  a  scale  worthy  of  the 
nation.  Before  the  passage  of  the  act  of  the  last  session,  it 
had  received  the  approbation  of  the  Engineer  Department,  and 
of  the  Secretary  of  War.  What  then  would  have  been  thought 
of  the  conduct  of  that  officer,  had  he  directed  a  new  survey 
to  be  made  under  this  act  ?  He  deemed  it  altogether  unnecessary. 
In  order  to  establish  this  position,  I  will  take  leave  to  read  to 
the  House  an  extract  from  his  late  report  made  to  the  President. 
He  declares  that  "  the  Board  was,  accordingly,  instructed  to 
examine  the  routes  for  canals  between  the  Delaware  and  the 
Raritan;  between  Barnstable  and  Buzzard's  bays,  and  Boston 
harbor,  and  Narragansett  bay.  The  execution  of  the  very  im- 
portant link  in  this  line  of  communication  betzveen  the  Delaware 
and  the  Chesapeake,  having  been  already  commenced  was  not 
comprehended  in  the  order." 

And  yet,  said  Mr.  B.  the  gentleman  from  New  York  wishes 


1825]        CHESAPEAKE  AND  DELAWARE  CANAL  131 

to  have  another  survey,  and  more  information,  before  he  can  feel 
himself  at  liberty  to  vote  for  this  appropriation.  Surely,  if  that 
gentleman  had  examined  the  documents  to  which  I  have  adverted, 
his  candor  would  have  prevented  him  from  using  such  an  argu- 
ment against  the  passage  of  this  bill. 

The  gentleman  has  objected  to  the  adoption  of  this  measure, 
because,  he  says,  it  does  not  appear  that  the  shares,  belonging  to 
such  stockholders  of  the  old  company  as  were  still  in  debt  for 
their  stock,  have  been  forfeited.  Said  Mr.  B.  I  think  it  will 
appear  that  the  gentleman  has  again  mistaken  the  fact.  What 
says  the  report  upon  this  subject?  It  appears  from  it  that,  when 
this  great  work  was  about  to  be  revived,  the  directors  called 
upon  the  old  stockholders  for  the  payment  of  five  dollars  on  each 
share,  for  the  purpose  of  discovering  such  as  might  be  willing 
to  continue  members  of  the  company.  Most  of  the  shares  upon 
which  the  $5  were  not  paid,  according  to  this  requisition,  belonged 
to  insolvents  and  to  the  estates  of  deceased  persons.  These  shares 
have  since  been  forfeited,  and  sold  at  public  auction,  pursuant  to 
the  order  of  the  board.  In  all  cases  in  which  there  was  a  reason- 
able prospect  of  recovery,  the  gentleman  from  Delaware,  (Mr. 
M'Lane)  informs  me,  suits  have  been  instituted  by  the  company. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  has,  therefore,  no  cause  of 
alarm  on  this  account.  Self-interest  is  sharp-sighted;  and  it  is 
for  this  reason  that  the  money  of  the  Government  can  never 
be  more  securely  invested,  nor  more  economically  applied,  than 
when  it  is  connected  with  that  of  individuals,  and  shares  the 
same  fate. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  has  urged,  as  an  argument 
against  the  passage  of  this  bill,  that  our  subscription  should  have 
been  conditional,  and  not  to  take  effect  until  the  remainder  of 
the  stock,  necessary  to  complete  the  canal,  shall  have  been  sub- 
scribed. 

I  am  extremely  sorry,  said  Mr.  B.  that  the  gentleman  had 
not  made  this  discovery  before  the  bill  was  on  its  third  reading, 
when  it  cannot  be  amended.  Had  he  offered  such  an  amendment 
at  the  proper  time,  it  would,  no  doubt,  have  been  adopted  by 
the  friends  of  the  bill.  But  is  such  a  provision  necessary  to 
secure  the  completion  of  the  work  ?  Certainly  not.  The  present 
stockholders  have  already  given  you  a  pledge  of  $700,000,  that 
they  will  not  suffer  this  great  national  work  to  sink.  After  you 
shall  have  subscribed  $300,000  there  will  then  be  little  more  than 
$200,000  necessary  to  complete  it.     There  is  no  necessity  for  the 


132  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

condition  proposed  by  the  gentleman,  unless  you  believe  that,  in 
regard  to  this  canal,  the  nature  of  man  will  be  reversed,  and  the 
dictates  of  self-interest  disregarded. 

I  would  ask  the  gentleman  seriously,  whether  he  can  believe 
there  is  any  danger,  that  the  individuals  interested  in  this  under- 
taking, after  $1,000,000  shall  have  been  expended  upon  it,  will 
suffer  it  to  sink  into  ruin,  rather  than  advance  the  sum  necessary 
for  its  completion?  Whether  they  will  voluntarily  abandon  the 
tolls  and  the  other  advantages  which  will  flow  from  it,  and  lose 
700,000  dollars,  rather  than  incur  an  additional  expense  of 
200,000  dollars? 

The  Company  have  already  made  contracts  for  the  whole 
of  the  work.  They  have  thus  pledged  themselves  to  the  con- 
tractors for  its  completion.  They  are,  therefore,  not  only  bound 
by  their  interest,  but  by  the  obligation  of  their  contracts  to  finish 
it.  Such  a  condition,  therefore,  as  that  suggested  by  the  gentle- 
man from  New  York  is  wholly  unnecessary. 

Mr.  B.  said,  that  as  he  had  risen  merely  to  answer  the  argu- 
ments of  the  gentleman  from  New  York,  and  not  to  enter  gener- 
ally upon  the  debate,  he  would  now  resume  his  seat. 


TO  THOMAS  ELDER.1 

Washington  24  Jan:  1825. 
Dear  Sir/ 

A  considerable  sensation  was  this  day  produced  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  by  the  circulation  of  a  report  that  the 
States  of  Kentucky  &  Ohio  had  determined  to  support  Adams. 
In  my  opinion  there  is  no  doubt  that  such  is  their  present  intention. 
Mr.  Clay  has  declared  himself  to  be  friendly  to  the  election  of 
Adams.  You  may  shew  this  letter  to  Hamilton  if  you  think 
proper ;  but  I  do  not  wish  it  published.  Comment  is  unnecessary, 
from  your  sincere   friend  in  haste 

James  Buchanan. 
Thomas  Elder  Esquire. 

[Enclosure.]  The  intelligence  that  the  Louisiana  Legislature  had  chosen 
her  electors  is  published  in  the  National  Intelligencer  of  Friday,  December 
17,  1824,  as  follows: 


1  Buchanan  Papers,  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania. 


1825]  ELECTION  OF  PRESIDENT  133 

"  The  Louisiana  Election — There  is  at  length  an  end  to  all  doubt  on  the 
subject  of  the  Electoral  Election  in  Louisiana,  the  only  state  from  which  we 
were  without  certain  information.  She  has  chosen  her  five  electors,  after 
six  ballotings  in  her  Legislature,  four  of  whom  will  vote  for  Gen.  Jackson, 
and  the  other,  it  is  supposed,  for  Mr.  Adams.  This  is  what  has  been  for  some 
time  anticipated.  It  is  now  settled,  past  doubt,  that  the  three  citizens  from 
among  whom  the  House  of  Representatives  is  to  make  choice  of  a  President, 
are :   Andrew  Jackson,  John  Quincy  Adams,  and  William  H.  Crawford." 

[From  Niles'  Weekly  Register  of  January  22,  1825.]  Presidential. — The 
following  resolutions  have  been  adopted  by  the  House  of  Representatives 
of  Kentucky,  73  to  11.  In  the  Senate  they  had  not  been  acted  upon  at  the 
latest  date  we  have  seen: 

Resolved,  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  common- 
wealth of  Kentucky,  that  the  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  from  this  state,  be  requested  to  vote  for  Gen. 
Andrew  Jackson  as  president  of  the  U.  States. 

Resolved,  as  the  opinion  of  the  legislature,  that  Gen.  Andrew  Jackson 
is  the  second  choice  of  the  state  of  Kentucky  for  the  next  President  of  the 
United  States;  that  a  very  large  majority  of  this  state  prefers  General  Jack- 
son to  Mr.  Adams  or  Mr.  Crawford,  and  that  the  members  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  in  the  Congress  of  the  U.  States  will,  by  complying  with 
the  request  herein  signified,  faithfully  and  truly  represent  the  feelings  and 
wishes  of  the  good  people  of  Kentucky. 

Resolved,  That  the  Governor  of  the  commonwealth  of  Kentucky  be 
requested  to  forward,  forthwith,  a  copy  of  the  foregoing  resolutions  to  each 
of  our  representatives  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  2,  1825, 

ON  THE  ELECTION  OF  PRESIDENT.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  he  rose  with  diffidence  to  express  his 
opinion  upon  this  subject.  Like  his  friend  from  Delaware,  (Mr. 
M'Lane,)  he  disclaimed  the  intention  of  making  any  remark 
which  might  have  an  allusion  to  the  peculiar  situation  of  the 
members  of  this  House,  in  regard  to  the  approaching  election. 
He  considered  the  present  to  be  a  question  of  great  importance, 
and  that  its  decision  would  establish  a  precedent,  which,  in  future 
times,  might  have  a  powerful  influence  upon  the  interests  of  this 
country.  He  was  sorry  to  say  he  had  arrived  at  a  conclusion  in 
direct  opposition  to  that  of  his  friend  from  Delaware,  (Mr. 
M'Lane.)  The  reasons  which  had  led  him  to  that  result,  he 
would  state  to  the  House. 

The  American  people,  said  Mr.  B.  have  a  right  to  be  present 
and  inspect  all  the  proceedings  of  their  representatives,  unless 

Register  of  Debates,  18  Cong.  2  Sess.  1824-1825,  I.  422-423. 


134  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

their  own  interest  forbids  it.  In  relation  to  our  concerns  with 
foreign  Governments,  it  may  become  necessary  to  close  our 
galleries.  Our  designs,  in  such  cases,  might  be  frustrated,  if 
secrecy  were  not,  for  a  time,  preserved.  Whenever  there  shall  be 
disorder  in  the  gallery,  we  have  also  a  right  to  clear  it,  and  are 
not  bound  to  suffer  our  proceedings  to  be  interrupted.  Except 
in  these  cases,  he  at  present  could  recollect  none  which  would 
justify  the  House  in  excluding  the  people. 

In  electing  a  President  of  the  United  States,  said  Mr.  B. 
we  are,  in  my  opinion,  peculiarly  the  representatives  of  the  people. 
On  that  important  occasion  we  shall,  emphatically,  represent  their 
majesty.  We  do  not  make  a  President  for  ourselves  only,  but 
also  for  the  whole  people  of  the  United  States.  They  have  a 
right  to  insist  that  it  shall  be  done  in  public.  He,  therefore,  pro- 
tested against  going  into  a  secret  conclave,  when  the  House 
should  decide  this  all  important  question.  He  said  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  gentleman  from  Delaware,  (Mr.  M'Lane,)  was 
altogether  new  to  his  mind.  That  gentleman  has  alleged  that 
we  are  called  upon  to  elect  a  President,  not  as  the  representatives 
of  the  people,  but  by  virtue  of  the  constitution.  Sir,  said  Mr.  B. 
who  created  the  constitution?  Was  it  not  the  people  of  the 
United  States  ?  And  did  they  not,  by  this  very  instrument,  dele- 
gate to  us,  as  representatives,  the  power  of  electing  a  President 
for  them?  It  is  by  virtue  of  this  instrument  we  hold  our  seats 
here.  And,  if  there  be  any  case  in  which  we  are  bound  to  obey 
their  will,  this  is  peculiarly  that  one.  To  them  we  must  be 
answerable  for  the  proper  exercise  of  this  duty. 

What  are  the  consequences,  said  Mr.  B.  which  will  result 
from  closing  the  doors  of  the  gallery?  We  shall  impart  to  the 
election  an  air  of  mystery.  We  shall  give  exercise  to  the  imagin- 
ations of  the  multitude,  in  conjecturing  what  scenes  are  acting 
within  this  Hall.  Busy  Rumour,  with  her  hundred  tongues,  will 
circulate  reports  of  wicked  combinations,  and  of  corruption,  which 
have  no  existence.  Let  the  people  see  what  we  are  doing;  let 
them  know  that  it  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  putting  our 
ballots  into  the  boxes,  and  they  will  soon  become  satisfied  with 
the  spectacle,  and  retire. 

The  gentleman  from  Delaware,  (Mr.  M'Lane,)  has  urged 
upon  us  the  precedent  which  now  exists  on  this  subject.  Mr.  B. 
said,  he  revered  the  men  of  former  days,  by  whom  this  precedent 
was  established.  He  had  good  reason,  however,  to  believe,  that 
the  intense  excitement  which  existed  at  that  time  among  the 


1825]  ELECTION  OF  PRESIDENT  135 

people,  at  the  Seat  of  Government,  was  occasioned,  in  a  consid- 
erable degree,  by  their  exclusion  from  the  gallery. — They  came  in 
crowds  into  the  House,  but  were  prohibited  from  entering  the 
Hall.  Currents  and  counter-currents  of  feeling  kept  them  con- 
tinually agitated.  New  conjectures  of  what  was  doing  within, 
were  constantly  spreading  among  them.  Mystery  always  gives 
birth  to  suspicion.  If  those  people  had  been  permitted  to  enter, 
much  of  the  excitement  which  then  prevailed  would  never  have 
existed. 

It  has  been  said,  that  there  might,  and  probably  would  be 
disorder,  if  we  admitted  the  people  into  the  gallery.  Mr.  B. 
could  scarcely  believe  this  possible.  He  had  too  high  an  opinion 
of  the  American  people  to  suffer  himself  to  entertain  such  an 
apprehension.  Should  we,  however,  be  mistaken,  where  is  the 
power  of  the  Speaker  ?  Where  that  of  the  House  ?  We  can  then 
turn  them  out,  and  we  shall  then  have  a  sufficient  apology  for 
doing  so.  But,  to  declare,  in  the  first  instance,  that  they  shall 
be  excluded,  upon  the  request  of  any  one  out  of  twenty-four 
states,  would  be  a  libel  both  upon  the  people  of  the  United  States 
and  the  members  of  this  House.  Mr.  B.  asked  pardon  for  this 
expression,  if  it  were  considered  too  harsh. 

Mr.  B.  said  he  knew  well  his  friend  from  Delaware  was 
willing  that  all  his  conduct,  in  regard  to  the  Presidential  question, 
should  be  exhibited  before  the  public,  and  that  it  was  principle, 
and  principle  alone,  which  had  suggested  his  remarks. 

That  which  gives  this  subject  its  chief  importance,  Mr.  B. 
said,  is  the  precedent.  He  was  anxious  that  it  should  be  settled 
on  sure  foundations.  If  the  rule,  in  its  present  form,  should  be 
adopted,  it  may,  and  probably  will,  be  dangerous  in  future  times. 
At  present,  our  Republic  is  in  its  infancy.  At  this  time,  he  enter- 
tained no  fear  of  corruption.  In  the  approaching  election,  it  can 
therefore  make  but  little  difference,  whether  the  gallery  shall  be 
opened  or  closed.  But  the  days  of  darkness  may,  and,  unless  we 
shall  escape  the  fate  of  all  other  Republics,  will  come  upon  us. 
Corruption  may  yet  stalk  abroad  over  our  happy  land.  When  she 
aims  a  blow  against  the  liberties  of  the  people,  it  will  be  done  in 
secret.  Such  deeds  always  shun  the  light  of  day. — They  can  be 
perpetrated,  with  a  much  greater  chance  of  success,  in  the  secrecy 
of  an  electoral  conclave,  than  when  the  proceedings  of  the  House 
are  fully  exposed  to  the  public  view.  Let  us  then  establish  a 
precedent,  which  will  have  a  strong  tendency  to  prevent  corrupt 
practices  hereafter. 


136  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

Mr.  B.  concluded  by  observing  that,  whether  we  regard  the 
precedent  to  be  set,  the  nature  of  our  Government,  our  own  char- 
acter, or  that  of  the  people  whom  we  represent,  they  all  conspire 
to  induce  us  to  adopt  the  amendment. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  21,  1825, 

ON  DRAWBACK  DUTIES.1 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  professed  himself  in  favor 
of  the  bill,  as  having  a  favorable  influence  on  the  trade  of  this 
country,  especially  to  South  America — it  enabled  the  merchant 
to  go  into  that  market  two  per  cent,  cheaper  than  at  present,  and 
argued  the  policy  of  securing  that  trade  as  speedily  as  possible. 
He  replied  to  Mr.  Trimble,  and  concluded  that  no  law,  proper  in 
itself,  should  be  objected  to,  because  it  happened  to  benefit  for- 
eigners. He  thought  the  bill  would  have  a  beneficial  effect  on 
the  manufacturing  interest. 


REMARKS,  MARCH  1,  1825, 

ON  THE  BILL  FOR  THE  SUPPRESSION  OF  PIRACY.2 

Mr.  Buchanan  then  moved  to  amend  the  bill,  by  reducing 
the  number  of  sloops  of  war  from  ten  to  five,  and  the  sum  appro- 
priated from  $500,000,  to  $425,000. 

In  support  of  his  motion,  Mr.  B.  observed,  that  the  present 
was  a  bill  for  the  suppression  of  piracy,  and  not  for  the  increase  of 
the  Navy.  He  thought  that  if  Congress  gave  the  Executive  all 
he  asked,  they  certainly  did  all  that  was  needed.  The  Secretary 
of  the  Navy  asked  only  for  four  sloops  of  war ;  he  was  willing  to 
give  him  five.  (Here  Mr.  B.  quoted  the  letter  of  the  Secretary.) 
He  thought  it  was  wisest  in  Congress  to  keep  the  power  in  their 
own  hands.  It  was  manifest,  that  only  5  sloops  could  be  built, 
for  the  $500,000  would  build  no  more — $425,000  was  sufficient 
for  this  purpose,  and  he  therefore  proposed  that  sum.  He  did 
not  wish  to  be  understood  as  holding  the  opinion  that  it  was 
not  proper  to  increase  the  Navy,  but  he  did  not  think  it  proper  to 
authorize  so  large  an  increase  of  it  at  the  present  time. 


1  Register  of  Debates,  18  Cong.  2  Sess.  1824-1825,  I.  636. 

2  Register  of  Debates,  18  Cong.  2  Sess.  1824-1825,  I.  729. 


1825]  BILL  TO  SUPPRESS  PIRACY  137 

REMARKS,  MARCH  1,  1825, 

ON  THE  BILL  TO  SUPPRESS  PIRACY.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  observed,  in  reply,  that  he  was  sorry  at  this 
late  hour  to  come  in  collision  with  the  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts. He  could  not  but  notice,  however,  that  that  gentleman 
had  not  thought  fit  to  reply  to  what  he  had  advanced  as  a 
principal  argument  in  favor  of  the  amendment  he  proposed,  that 
only  500,000  dollars  were  appropriated,  and  five  sloops  of  war 
would  cost  $425,000.  Could  we  not  repose  confidence  in  the  next 
Congress ;  could  we  not  leave  them  to  judge,  since  only  five  ships 
could  be  built  this  year,  whether  five  more  would  be  wanting  next 
year?  It  was  vain  to  say  that  a  number  of  ships  should  be  built, 
not  exceeding  ten,  and  then  to  give  means  only  for  five.  If  ten 
were  intended  to  be  given,  they  would  cost  $850,000.  Perhaps  it 
was  not  held  politic  to  spread  such  an  amount  before  the  people. 
The  Senate  had  passed  a  bill  for  ten  sloops  of  war  in  the  early 
part  of  last  session.  But,  during  all  of  last  session,  and  all  of  the 
present,  until  now,  the  House  had  refused  to  take  up  that  bill. 
Was  it  proper,  at  this  late  moment,  to  enter  into  a  discussion 
about  the  increase  of  the  Navy  ?  We  had  already  spent  eight  mil- 
lions on  the  Navy — he  wanted  to  know  how  this  had  been  spent ; 
and  whether  the  ships  which  had  been  built  corresponded  with 
the  law.  He  wanted  to  know  whether  the  ancient  discipline  was 
still  continued.  He  doubted  the  propriety  of  incorporating  in  a 
bill  for  the  suppression  of  piracy,  provisions  which  went,  in  fact, 
to  increasing  the  Navy. 


Mr.  Buchanan,  in  reply,  said  the  gentleman  appeals  to  me, 
but  I  can  assure  him  he  appeals  in  vain.  He,  however,  has  been 
chosen  a  member  of  the  next  Congress — I  also  have;  and  if  he 
shall  then  make  to  me  the  same  appeal,  I  promise  him  that  appeal 
shall  not  be  made  in  vain. 


Mr.  Buchanan  observed,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Webster,  that  that 
gentleman  had  begun  his  speech  in  a  manner  he  did  not  expect 
from  him,  and  had  expressed  himself  as  much  amazed  that  he 
(Mr.  B.)    should  not  be  able  to  comprehend  how  the  money 

1  Register  of  Debates,  18  Cong.  2  Sess.  1824-1825,  I.  730,  731,  732. 


138  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

appropriated  is  spent.  He  must  have  been  very  stupid  indeed,  to 
doubt  for  a  moment  that  any  sum  that  we  may  appropriate  would 
be  spent  by  the  Navy  Department.  But  he  knew  that  timber 
was  already  bought,  and  he  did  not  see  the  necessity  of  appro- 
priating money  to  buy  it.  He,  too,  was  for  beginning  before 
we  end.  He  would  begin  now  with  five  ships,  and  end  next  Con- 
gress with  five  more.  He  was  sorry  to  repeat  an  argument  he 
had  already  more  than  once  employed :  but  he  could  not  compre- 
hend why  there  should  be  so  much  tenacity  manifested  for  build- 
ing ten  ships,  when  the  500,000  appropriated,  would  not  build 
them.  But  he  presumed  the  plan  was  now,  to  get  the  House  to 
say,  that  the  ships  shall  be  built,  and  then  to  say,  that  next  session 
the  money  required  must  be  appropriated.  He  was  opposed  to 
this  proceeding.  Why  should  not  the  House  retain  its  discretion, 
as  to  granting  or  not  granting  the  means  to  build  the  other  five, 
if  at  next  session  we  should  deem  them  necessary  ? 


TO  GENERAL  JACKSON.1 

May  29,  1825. 
My  Dear  General  : 

I  write  this  letter  from  Mercersburg,  being  now  on  a  visit 
to  my  mother  and  the  family.  I  have  no  news  of  any  importance 
to  communicate,  but  both  inclination  and  duty  conspire  to  induce 
me  to  trouble  you  occasionally  with  a  few  lines,  whilst  you  must 
be  gratefully  remembered  by  every  American  citizen  who  feels 
an  interest  in  the  character  of  his  country's  glory. 

You  have  imposed  additional  obligations  upon  me  by  the 
uniform  kindness  and  courtesy  with  which  you  have  honored  me. 

In  Pennsylvania,  amongst  a  vast  majority  of  the  people, 
there  is  but  one  sentiment  concerning  the  late  Presidential  elec- 
tion. Although  they  submit  patiently,  as  is  their  duty,  to  the 
legally  constituted  powers,  yet  there  is  a  fixed  and  determined 
resolution  to  change  them  as  soon  as  they  have  the  constitutional 
power  to  do  so.  In  my  opinion,  your  popularity  in  Pennsyl- 
vania is  now  more  firmly  established  than  ever.  Many  persons 
who  heretofore  supported  you  did  it  cheerfully  from  a  sense  of 
gratitude,  and  because  they  thought  it  would  be  disgraceful  to 
the  people  not  to  elevate  that  candidate  to  the  Presidential  Chair, 


1  Curtis's  Buchanan,  I.  44. 


1825]  FROM  GENERAL  JACKSON  139 

who  had  been  so  great  a  benefactor  of  the  country.  The  slanders 
which  had  been  so  industriously  circulated  against  your  character 
had,  nevertheless,  in  some  degree  affected  their  minds,  although 
they  never  doubted  either  your  ability  or  patriotism,  yet  they 
expressed  fears  concerning  your  temper.  These  have  been  all 
dissipated  by  the  mild  prudence  and  dignity  of  your  conduct  last 
winter,  before  and  after  the  Presidential  election.  The  majority 
is  so  immense  in  your  favor  that  there  is  little  or  no  newspaper 
discussion  on  the  subject.  I  most  sincerely  and  fervently  trust  and 
hope  that  the  x\lmighty  will  preserve  your  health  until  the  period 
shall  again  arrive  when  the  sovereign  people  shall  have  the  power 
of  electing  a  President. 

There  never  was  a  weaker  attempt  made  than  that  to  con- 
ciliate the  good  opinion  of  Pennsylvania  in  favor  of  the  adminis- 
tration by  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Rush,  although  no  appointment 
could  have  produced  the  effect  desired ;  yet,  if  the  President  had 
selected  Mr.  Sergeant,  he  would  have  chosen  a  man  who  had 
been  his  early  and  consistent  friend,  and  one  whose  character 
for  talents  and  integrity  stands  high  with  all  parties  in  this  State. 
Mr.  Rush  was  a  candidate  for  the  office  of  elector  on  the  Craw- 
ford ticket.  I  verily  believe  his  appointment  will  not  procure  for 
the  administration,  out  of  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  twenty  new 
friends  throughout  the  State.  In  that  city  their  additional 
strength  is  limited  to  John  Binns  and  a  few  of  his  devoted  fol- 
lowers. 

I  hope  Mrs.  Jackson,  ere  this,  has  been  restored  to  her  accus- 
tomed health.  When  I  left  her,  I  felt  some  apprehensions  in  rela- 
tion to  the  issue  of  her  disease.  Please  to  present  to  her  my 
kindest  and  best  respects,  and  believe  me  to  be  ever  your  sincere 
friend, 

James  Buchanan. 


FROM   GENERAL  JACKSON.1 

Hermitage,  June  25,  1825. 
Dear  Sir: 

I  have  the  pleasure  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  kind  letter  of  the 
29th  ult,  which  has  just  reached  me. 

That  respect  which  I  formed  for  your  character  on  our  first  acquaintance 
increased  with  our  friendly  intercourse,  and  to  you  was  only  extended  what 


1  Curtis's  Buchanan,  I.  45. 


140  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

I  viewed  a  debt  due  to  your  merit  as  a  gentleman  of  intelligence  and  urban- 
ity. It  is,  therefore,  a  source  of  much  gratification  to  me  to  receive  a  letter 
from  you,  detailing  the  friendly  feelings  of  the  citizens  of  Pennsylvania 
toward  me. 

It  is  gratifying  to  hear,  through  you,  that  the  confidence  and  support 
which  the  majority  of  the  citizens  of  Pennsylvania  expressed  for  me,  by 
their  vote  on  the  Presidential  question,  will  not  be  withdrawn  by  the  artful 
and  insidious  efforts  of  my  enemies.  This  is  another  evidence  of  the  firmness 
and  indulgence  of  the  freemen  of  Pennsylvania.  This  organized  plan  of 
calumny  and  slander,  levelled  against  me  by  the  unprincipled  and  wicked, 
will  not  owe  its  defeat  to  any  effort  of  mine,  unless  it  be  that  which  always 
attends  truth  and  a  conscious  rectitude  of  conduct,  when  submitted  to  an 
untrammelled  and  honest  public.  The  continued  good  opinion,  therefore,  of 
my  fellow-citizens  of  Pennsylvania,  lays  me  under  additional  obligations, 
whilst  it  connects  my  name  with  another  guaranty  of  the  wisdom  of  our 
government — I  mean  in  furnishing  to  posterity  another  example  of  the  weak- 
ness of  demagogues  when  endeavoring  to  advance  to  power  upon  the  destruc- 
tion of  innocence. 

It  is  much  to  the  honor  of  the  good  citizens  of  Pennsylvania  that  they 
calmly  submit  to  the  legally  constituted  power ;  this  all  good  citizens  will  do, 
who  love  a  government  of  laws,  although  they  show  much  disapprobation  at 
the  means  by  which  that  power  was  obtained,  and  are  determined  to  oppose 
the  men  who  obtained  power  by  what  they  believe  illicit  means.  The  great 
constitutional  corrective  in  the  hands  of  the  people  against  usurpation  of 
power,  or  corruption  by  their  agents,  is  the  right  of  suffrage;  and  this,  when 
used  with  calmness  and  deliberation,  will  prove  strong  enough.  It  will  per- 
petuate their  liberties  and  rights,  and  will  compel  their  representatives  to 
discharge  their  duties  with  an  eye  single  to  the  public  interest,  for  whose 
security  and  advancement  government  is  constituted. 

I  have  not  yet  been  so  fortunate  as  to  fall  in  with  Mr.  Frazer,  although  I 
have  made  inquiry  for  him.  Should  I  meet  with  him,  be  assured  it  will  be  a 
gratification  to  me  to  extend  to  him  those  attentions  due  to  any  of  your 
friends. 

I  regret  very  much  that  the  bad  health  of  Mrs.  J.  prevented  me  from 
passing  through  your  hospitable  town.  I  assure  you,  could  we  have  done  so, 
it  would  have  afforded  Mrs.  J.  and  myself  much  pleasure.  Mrs.  J.'s  health 
is  perfectly  restored.  So  soon  as  I  got  her  to  breathe  the  mountain  air  of 
Pennsylvania,  she  mended  by  the  hour. 

We  are  also  blessed,  in  this  section  of  the  country,  with  the  promise  of 
fine  crops.  Our  cotton  promises  a  good  crop.  This  is  six  days  earlier  than 
ever  known  in  this  section  of  country. 

Mrs.  J.  joins  me  in  kind  salutations  to  you,  with  our  best  wishes  for  your 
happiness.  Your  friend, 

Andrew  Jackson. 


1825]  CASE  OF  COMMODORE  PORTER  141 

REMARKS,  DECEMBER  15  AND  16,  1825, 

ON  THE  CASE  OF  COMMODORE   PORTER.1 

[Dec.  15.]     The  House  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of 
the  following  resolution,  yesterday  submitted  by  Mr.  Buchanan : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  be  directed  to  lay  before  this 
House  the  proceedings  of  the  late  Court  of  Inquiry  and  Court  Martial,  in 
relation  to  the  case  of  Commodore  Porter. 


Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  had  no  other  motive  in  calling  for  the 
Proceedings  in  the  case  of  Commodore  Porter,  than  to  give  pub- 
licity to  those  Proceedings.  Not  conceiving,  however,  that  the 
fact  of  reciprocation  of  copies  of  printed  papers  between  the  two 
Houses,  obviated  the  propriety  of  this  House  calling,  indepen- 
dently of  the  proceedings  in  the  Senate,  for  any  papers  it  desired 
to  possess,  Mr.  B.  still  desired  the  question  to  be  taken  on  the 
passage  of  this  resolution.  He  understood  that  the  documents 
which  it  embraced  were  already  printed,  and  it  could  do  no  harm 
to  shew,  by  the  resolution,  the  disposition  of  the  House  to  have 
them  before  it.  If  any  objection  existed  to  the  object  of  the 
resolution,  Mr.  B.  said  he  would,  on  its  being  stated,  endeavor  to 
answer  it ;  but  he  did  not  deem  it  either  correct  or  politic  to  antici- 
pate objections  to  his  proposition. 


Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  did  not  perceive,  himself,  that  this 
amendment  was  necessary.  But  it  could  certainly  do  no  harm, 
and  would  make  the  resolution  more  comprehensive.  He  there- 
fore accepted  the  amendment  as  a  part  of  his  motion,  and  agreed 
that  it  should  form  a  part  of  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Webster  inquired  whether  it  was  not  usual,  in  calling 
on  the  President  for  copies  of  correspondence,  to  refer  the  matter 
to  the  exercise  of  a  discretion  on  the  part  of  the  President,  as  to 
the  propriety  of  making  the  communication  asked  for.  To  com- 
municate correspondence,  without  reserve,  might,  in  some  cases, 
and  possibly  in  this,  be  prejudicial  to  the  public  interest. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  he  was  perfectly  willing  to  assent  to  any 
amendment  whatever  of  the  resolution,  which  did  not  go  to  defeat 
its  object. 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  1,  pp.  806,  807, 
808,  815-817. 


142  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

Mr.  Webster  suggested  the  propriety  of  letting  the  resolve 
lie  on  the  table  till  to-morrow,  to  give  time  to  ascertain  whether 
the  House  would  not  receive  the  papers  for  which  the  resolution 
proposed  to  call,  without  passing  the  resolution. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  he  had  no  wish  to  press  the  resolution, 
but  he  could  not  see  what  objection  there  could  be  to  acting  on 
it  now.  The  information  called  for  by  the  Senate  was  for  the 
Senate's  use,  and  not  for  this  House.  The  information  ought  to 
be  regularly  before  the  House,  and  Mr.  B.  therefore  wished  his 
motion,  as  it  had  been  introduced,  to  pass.  Why  not  pass  it  to- 
day? At  the  same  time,  as  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
seemed  to  wish  the  postponement,  Mr.  B.  said  he  would  not  press 
it  on  the  House  at  present;  but,  if  it  were  laid  on  the  table,  he 
should  think  it  his  duty  to  call  up  the  resolution  to-morrow,  that 
the  sense  of  the  House  might  be  taken  upon  it. 


[Dec.  1 6.]  On  motion  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  the  House  took 
up  (not  without  a  number  of  negative  voices)  the  resolution 
offered  by  him  the  day  before  yesterday,  calling  for  the  Proceed- 
ings of  the  Court  Martial  and  the  Court  of  Inquiry,  recently  held 
upon  Commodore  David  Porter. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  that  when  he  had  the  honor  of  submitting 
this  resolution,  he  had  supposed  that  it  would  pass,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  and  not  a  word  be  necessary  to  be  said  upon  the  subject. 
So  firmly  was  he  of  that  opinion,  that  he  thought  it  needless  to 
trespass  on  the  attention  of  the  House,  to  show  any  reasons  for 
its  passage.  The  unwillingness  which  had  been  shown  to  act 
upon  it,  made  it  his  duty  now  to  submit  a  few  observations  in 
reference  to  it;  having  done  which,  he  should  submit  it  to  the 
pleasure  of  the  House. 

What,  asked  Mr.  B.  is  the  purport  of  this  resolution?  It 
proposes  a  call  on  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  for  a  copy  of  the 
Proceedings  of  the  late  Court  Martial  and  Court  of  Inquiry  in 
the  case  of  Commodore  Porter.  Is  this,  said  he,  a  novel  request  ? 
No;  it  is  of  a  nature  of  others  which  have  repeatedly  met  the 
approbation  of  this  House.  Within  my  own  distinct  recollection, 
three  cases  of  this  kind  occurred  during  the  last  session  of  Con- 
gress, in  which  the  calls  were  granted  as  matter  of  course,  viz : 
in  the  case  of  Major  Babcock,  that  of  Lieutenant  Weaver,  and 
that  of  Lieutenant  Conner.  And,  sir,  ought  they  not  to  have 
been  granted?     The  question  is  not  now  upon  the  printing  of 


1825]  CASE  OF  COMMODORE  PORTER  143 

these  documents — though,  if  it  were,  he  believed  he  could  satisfy 
the  House  of  the  propriety  of  their  being  printed,  and  that  an 
objection  to  calling  for  information,  because  of  the  contingency, 
that  it  might,  when  obtained,  be  ordered  to  be  printed,  was  an 
argument  entitled  to  no  weight  at  all — the  question  is,  how  are 
we,  who  want  it,  to  obtain  this  information,  but  by  availing  our- 
selves of  the  authority  of  this  House  to  obtain  it  ?  As  to  apply- 
ing personally  at  the  Department  for  it,  Mr.  B.  said  an  individual 
member  of  this  House  had  no  more  right  to  require  information 
from  any  of  the  Departments,  than  any  other  individual.  Was  it 
proper,  he  asked,  that  members  of  this  House  should  go,  one 
after  the  other,  to  the  Departments,  and  ask,  each  for  himself, 
to  see  papers,  and  obtain  information  which  concerns  the  welfare 
of  the  whole  ?  Certainly  not.  The  practice,  therefore,  has  been, 
and  he  trusted  would  continue  to  be,  when  a  member  of  this 
House,  representing,  as  each  member  does,  an  important  portion 
of  this  community,  calls  for  a  public  paper,  he  shall  have  it  by  a 
vote  of  this  House.  It  had  been  suggested  yesterday,  and  with 
great  deference  he  must  say  the  suggestion  was  wholly  out  of 
order,  that  these  papers  had  been  called  for  by  the  Senate,  and 
that,  therefore,  it  was  not  necessary  to  call  for  them  here.  But, 
said  he,  is  there  any  other  mode  in  which  the  information  could 
be  properly  in  possession  of  this  House,  than  by  calling  for  it 
ourselves?  Is  the  Head  of  a  Department  responsible  to  us  if  he 
do  not  send  to  the  Senate  all  the  documents  in  any  case?  Far 
be  it  from  me  to  say,  that  the  respectable  Head  of  that  Depart- 
ment would  in  any  case  withhold  documents  proper  to  be  com- 
municated— I  have  no  such  opinion  of  him ;  but,  as  an  argument, 
this  supposition  may  serve  to  show  that  this  House  ought  itself 
to  call  for  whatever  papers  it  has  occasion  for. 

It  had  also  been  suggested,  that  this  House  ought  not  to  call 
for  any  documents  on  any  Department  of  the  Government,  unless 
the  Member  moving  the  call  will  avow  that  he  has  a  specific 
object  in  doing  it.  Now,  Mr.  B.  said,  it  was  obvious  that  a 
Member  must  see  and  know  the  contents  of  a  document  before  he 
can  judge  whether  or  not  it  be  proper  to  found  any  measure  upon 
them.  In  the  present  case,  Mr.  B.  said,  he  did  not  meditate  any 
ulterior  proceeding.  He  had  called  for  these  documents,  and 
he  had  expected  that  they  would  have  been  granted  as  a  matter 
of  course,  for  the  purpose  of  examining  them  critically  for  him- 
self, and  whether  any  ulterior  proceeding  was  to  be  moved,  or  not, 
would  depend  on  the  aspect  of  the  documents  after  they  were 
submitted. 


144  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1825 

What,  then,  said  Mr.  B.  is  the  nature  of  the  question  pre- 
sented by  this  resolution  ?  There  is  a  gallant  officer  of  our  Navy, 
who  has  been  tried  by  a  Court  Martial,  and  convicted — whether 
correctly  or  not,  I  do  not  wish  to  express  an  opinion ;  I  cannot, 
until  I  see  the  documents,  to  enable  me  to  form  one.  It  is  an 
unquestionable  fact,  that,  in  regard  to  that  trial  and  its  result, 
the  country  is  divided  in  sentiment.  The  friends  of  this  officer — 
an  officer  who  has  shed  lustre  on  the  character  of  our  Navy; 
whose  fame  is  such  that  our  sister  Republics  vie  with  one  another 
in  offering  him  inducements  to  engage  in  their  service — the 
friends  of  this  officer  come  forward,  and  ask  that  the  proceedings 
of  the  Courts  in  his  case  should  be  laid  before  the  Representative 
tribunal.  Is  this  an  unreasonable  request?  Is  it  an  argument 
against  complying  with  such  a  request,  that  our  impoverished  and 
embarrassed  Treasury  may  be  called  upon  to  defray  the  expense 
of  printing  these  papers  when  received?  There  is,  in  this  coun- 
try, a  tribunal  higher  than  this — which  reviews  the  proceeding 
of  every  other,  and  judges  both  the  accuser  and  the  accused 
according  to  their  desert — the  tribunal  of  public  opinion.  Is 
nothing  clue  to  that  tribunal?  Is  it  not  due  to  the  People  that 
these  papers  should  be  laid  before  them?  That,  said  Mr.  B.  is 
all  that  I  ask;  and  if  any  one  supposes  that  I  had  any  view,  in 
offering  this  resolution,  but  to  obtain  correct  information  for 
myself  and  others  who  desire  it,  they  are  entirely  mistaken.  And, 
Mr.  B.  said,  if  he  understood  rightly,  the  expense  of  printing  the 
papers,  when  received,  need  not  be  incurred  in  this  case:  for,  so 
proper  had  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  considered  it  that  the 
proceedings  of  the  Court  Martial'  should  be  made  public,  he  had 
already  caused  them  to  be  printed  and  held  in  readiness  to  be 
laid  before  Congress,  if  called  for. 

It  had  been  suggested,  yesterday,  that  this  call  for  papers 
ought  to  have  been  addressed  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  with  a  reservation  to  that  officer  of  a  discretion  as  to  the 
propriety  of  communicating  the  papers  called  for. 

Mr.  B.  said,  on  referring  to  the  Journal  of  the  last  session, 
he  found  that,  in  the  case  of  Major  Babcock,  the  Secretary  of  War 
had  been  called  upon  to  communicate  the  proceedings  of  the 
Court;  so  that  there  was  nothing  unusual  in  the  form  of  the 
proceeding  now  proposed.  Nor  could  he  believe  that  there  were 
any  documents  connected  with  the  trial  in  the  case  of  Commodore 
Porter  that  it  would  be  improper  to  communicate  to  Congress. 
If  the  respectable  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  thought  other- 


1825]  COLLECTION  OF  CUSTOMS  145 

wise,  however,  he  could  move  an  amendment  to  that  effect.  Mr. 
B.  concluded  by  remarking,  that  he  would  rather  that  this  resolu- 
tion should  have  passed  without  a  word  from  him  in  relation  to 
it,  and  he  now  submitted  it  entirely  to  the  pleasure  of  the  House. 
The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  passage  of  the  resolution, 
and  was  decided,  without  a  division,  in  the  affirmative. 


REMARKS,   DECEMBER  27,   1825, 

ON  LOSSES  IN  THE  COLLECTION  OF  CUSTOMS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  thought  it  due  to  the  Collector  of  the 
Port  of  Philadelphia,  that  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Virginia  should  pass.  If  a  long  life  of  unsuspected 
integrity  and  public  usefulness  could  constitute  a  claim  to  the 
favorable  consideration  of  the  House,  this  amendment  should  be 
adopted  in  justice  to  that  officer.  The  resolution  introduced  by 
his  colleague  (Mr.  Wurts)  embraced  not  only  the  inquiry, 
whether  goods  had  been  illegally  removed  from  the  stores  of  the 
custom-house,  but,  also,  what  had  been  the  conduct  of  the  officers 
who  had  those  goods  in  charge.  If  it  should  be  ascertained  that 
these  goods  had  been  illegally  removed,  then  the  case  would 
present  an  aspect  in  which  the  information  asked  by  the  amend- 
ment might  become  very  important.  There  was  a  striking  differ- 
ence between  negligence  and  intentional  guilt.  If  it  should 
eventually  appear  that  the  losses  sustained  by  the  Government  pro- 
ceeded from  the  illegal  conduct  of  the  Collector,  which,  however, 
he  did  not  believe  to  be  the  case :  then  it  would  be  highly  important 
to  know  what  had  been  his  conduct  immediately  after  the  dis- 
covery and  disclosure  of  the  transaction.  If  every  exertion  upon 
his  part  had  been  promptly  made  to  protect  the  public  interest 
and  repair  the  injury  which  had  been  done,  it  was  a  circumstance 
which  ought  to  go  far  in  redeeming  his  character  from  the  impu- 
tation of  an  intentional  violation  of  the  law,  and  was  a  fact  which, 
in  justice,  should  be  made  known.  Mr.  B.  said,  he  concurred  in 
the  sentiments  expressed  by  his  friend  from  Delaware,  except  in 
the  opinion  that  the  object  proposed  by  the  amendment  ought  to 
be  a  distinct  subject  of  inquiry.  He  thought  it  was  one  entire 
transaction,  and  that  justice  to  the  parties  concerned  required 
that  the  whole  information  should  come  together  from  the  Depart- 
ment. 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  1,  p.  860. 
10 


146  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

1826. 
REMARKS,  JANUARY  5,  1826, 

ON  THE  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  observed,  that  he  could  not  concur  in  senti- 
ment with  the  gentleman  from  Virginia.  The  provision  which 
allowed  the  Judges  themselves  to  fix  upon  their  own  allotment 
among  the  several  districts  in  the  United  States,  still  existed. 
That  provision  had  continued  in  existence  till  now,  without  any 
inconvenience,  that  he  had  ever  heard  of,  having  been  sustained  in 
consequence  of  it.  Was  it  not  a  proper  arrangement?  Could 
any  argument  of  force  be  alleged  against  it?  Who  is  it  that  is 
appointed  a  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States? 
The  President  makes  a  selection  of  these  officers  over  the  whole 
Union.  He  seeks  for  men  in  whom  natural  intellect  has  been 
matured  by  study  and  experience;  who  possess  firmness,  energy, 
and  weight  of  character — men  eminent  in  their  profession  and 
learned  in  the  law.  Men,  in  whom  these  requisites  unite,  may 
not  always  be  found  in  every  section  of  the  Union,  and  the  inten- 
tion of  the  law  is,  that,  after  they  shall  have  been  selected,  wher- 
ever they  may  chance  to  be,  they  shall  be  brought  together,  and 
shall  then  distribute  themselves  through  the  various  districts  of  the 
Union,  in  such  manner  as  shall  best  consult  their  own  personal 
convenience,  and  the  interests  of  the  country  at  large.  Such  had 
been  the  practice  through  an  unbroken  series  of  years,  and  to  say 
now,  that  particular  individuals  shall  be  fixed  to  this  or  that  par- 
ticular Circuit,  would  be  to  interfere  with  a  Judicial  right.  If 
one  of  the  Judges  shall  die,  or  shall  resign  his  office,  a  new  allot- 
ment is  necessary,  and  this  gives  opportunity  for  the  President  to 
make  a  choice  wherever  he  shall  see  fit,  and  then  the  new  Judge 
falls  into  the  general  arrangement,  and  is  allotted  as  best  suits  the 
convenience  of  all  parties.  Is  there,  said  Mr.  B.  any  danger 
here — is  there  any  formidable  cause  of  alarm — is  it  likely,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  the  three  new  Judges  will  be  able  to  control  and 
overrule  the  seven  old  ones?  Is  there  the  remotest  probability, 
that  any  one  of  the  Atlantic  Judges  will,  by  such  an  influence, 
be  removed  against  his  will  across  the  Alleghany  Mountains? 
The  power  of  choosing  their  own  Circuits  has  been  vested  in  these 
Judges  since  the  foundation  of  the  Government,  and  an  attempt, 

1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  1,  p.  887. 


1826]  SPEECH  ON  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM  147 

by  this  amendment,  to  incorporate  into  the  law  a  new  system, 
would  be  likely,  instead  of  being  beneficial,  to  prove  highly  in- 
jurious. The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  in  presenting  the  bill 
in  its  present  form,  had  been  influenced  by  a  wish  to  permit  the 
subject  to  come  fairly  and  simply  before  the  House.  In  that 
simple  form  he  hoped  that  the  principles  of  this  measure  would 
receive  their  discussion,  and  that  the  subject  would  not  be  em- 
barrassed by  adding  to  the  bill  any  new  provisions  at  present.  Let 
the  gentleman's  measure  be  argued  as  a  general  measure,  and  then 
let  it  stand  or  fall  on  its  own  merits. 


SPEECH,  JANUARY  9  AND  10,  1826, 

ON  THE  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM.* 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  that  he  should  make  no  apology  for 
troubling  the  committee  at  this  time;  his  situation  as  a  member 
of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  rendered  it  his  duty  to  occupy 
their  attention.  The  able  speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
required  an  answer:  for  that  gentleman  had  brought  forward 
nearly  every  thing  which  could  be  urged  with  any  sort  of  weight 
against  the  measure  proposed  in  the  bill.  He  should  endeavor  to 
follow  the  course  of  his  arguments  in  such  a  reply  as  he  might 
be  able  to  offer.  In  doing  so,  he  would  first  be  under  the  neces- 
sity of  directing  the  attention  of  the  committee,  for  a  short  time, 
to  a  part  of  the  judicial  history  of  this  country.  In  the  year  1802, 
Congress  had  this  subject  before  them,  (he  would  not  carry  the 
committee  to  a  period  further  back)  and,  at  that  time,  the  present 
Judicial  system  had  been  established.  The  entire  territory  of 
the  United  States  was  then  divided  into  six  circuits.  A  Circuit 
Judge  was  assigned  to  each  of  them,  and  these  six  Circuit  Judges 
constituted  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  The  ques- 
tion to  be  determined  at  that  time,  was  between  what  was  called 
the  Circuit  Court  System,  and  that  which  was  adopted,  and 
which  at  present  prevails.  The  respective  merits  of  the  two 
systems  were  fully  compared,  and  the  question  of  preference  de- 
liberately settled — nor  has  a  whisper  of  disapprobation,  for  many 
years  past,  been  heard  against  the  result.  The  plan  adopted  has 
received  the  seal  of  experience ;  a  vast  number  of  important  con- 
troversies have  been  submitted  to  the  adjudication  of  the  tribunal 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  1,  pp.  916-925, 
927-929,  930-932. 


148  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

then  established;  and  the  principles  involved  have  been  decided 
in  a  manner  which  has  secured  to  the  Court  the  entire  confidence 
of  this  whole  People. 

The  next  event  worthy  of  notice  which  occurred  in  our 
judicial  history,  was  in  1807,  when  Congress  again  had  the  sub- 
ject before  them.  The  question  then  was,  whether  they  should 
depart  from  the  system  adopted  in  1802,  or  should  extend  it,  in 
its  existing  form,  to  the  increased  wants  and  exigencies  of  the 
country.  The  result  was,  the  passing  of  an  act,  by  which  a 
seventh  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  added  to  the  six  already 
on  the  bench,  and  a  circuit  was  assigned  to  him,  consisting  of 
Tennessee,  Kentucky,  and  Ohio. 

I  was  therefore  greatly  astonished  to  hear  from  the  gentle- 
man from  Virginia,  that  the  principles  contained  in  this  bill  were 
new.  So  far  have  the  committee  been  from  recommending  any 
new  project,  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  have  but  proposed  to 
extend  to  other  portions  of  the  Union,  the  benefits  of  a  system, 
the  wisdom  of  which  has  been  already  tested  by  the  experience 
of  all  the  Atlantic  States.  In  1802,  Ohio  was  only  a  Territory — 
but  in  1807,  she  had  become  a  respectable  State,  and  Kentucky 
and  Tennessee  were  then  fast  rising  into  importance.  Congress 
therefore,  resolved,  at  the  latter  period,  to  extend  to  these  im- 
portant members  of  the  Confederacy,  the  benefits  already  enjoyed 
by  their  sister  States.  In  consequence  of  this  determination,  the 
Judge  who  has  been  so  highly,  and  so  deservedly  eulogized  in  the 
speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  was  put  upon  the  bench. 
This  system  has  continued  without  alteration,  addition,  or  com- 
plaint, for  a  period  of  eighteen  years :  and  the  question  for  the 
committee  now  to  decide  is,  whether  the  country  shall  go  on  in 
this  prosperous  and  happy  judicial  course,  extending  the  present 
well-tried  system  to  meet  the  wants  of  the  People,  or  whether  we 
shall  commence  a  career  of  new  and  untried  and  hazarded  experi- 
ments. 

The  first  inquiry  to  be  answered  is,  Does  the  judicial  situ- 
ation of  the  United  States  require  the  change? 

And,  on  this  point,  the  gentleman  undertook  the  Herculean 
task.  He  attempted  to  prove,  that  the  present  bill  is  not  required 
by  the  necessities  of  the  country.  The  argument  of  the  gentle- 
man, has,  however,  in  this  particular,  contradicted  itself:  for, 
although  he  set  out  with  declaring,  and  adducing  arguments  to 
prove,  that  so  cumbrous  a  machinery  as  three  additional  Judges 
was  not  necessary,  he  concluded  his  speech  by  pledging  himself 


1826]  SPEECH  ON  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM  149 

that  he  should  offer  as  a  substitute,  if  the  committee  would  consent 
to  strike  out  the  first  section  of  the  bill,  the  establishment  of  ten 
circuits,  and  the  appointment  of  ten  new  Judges.  If,  as  the 
gentleman  endeavored  to  persuade  us,  the  present  organization 
of  the  system  is  adequate  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  country,  how 
can  he  reconcile  it  to  himself  to  offer  such  a  proposition  as  he  has 
bound  himself  to  do,  in  case  his  motion  should  prevail  ?  Surely 
the  gentleman  cannot  wish  to  establish  so  many  sinecures. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  not  a  fact  that  the  present  number 
of  Circuit  Courts  is  adequate  to  the  wants  of  this  nation.  The 
complaints  of  the  whole  Western  Country  are  spread  before  you. 
The  citizens  of  that  part  of  the  Union  are  clamorous  for  some 
change,  or  some  extension  of  the  system;  and,  in  my  opinion, 
they  have  the  justest  reason  for  urging  their  demands.  Sir,  the 
administration  of  justice,  as  has  been  justly  observed  in  the  course 
of  this  debate,  goes  home  to  the  bosom  of  every  society.  The 
wisest  and  most  wholesome  laws  are  passed  in  vain,  unless  they 
are  so  administered,  and  executed,  as  to  carry  the  benefits  they 
contain  to  the  People  for  whom  they  are  provided. 

Your  statute  book  may  be  loaded  with  wise  and  judicious 
regulations;  but  if,  from  a  defect  in  the  organization  of  the 
judicial  system,  they  never  reach  the  great  body  of  the  People, 
they  are  but  as  a  sounding  brass  and  tinkling  cymbal.  The  office 
of  Judge  is  one  of  the  greatest  dignity,  and  of  the  greatest 
importance  to  the  country.  The  Judge  has  it  in  his  power  to  do 
more  good  or  evil  than  any  other  officer  of  your  Government, 
because  he,  and  he  alone,  is  to  carry  those  laws  into  effect,  which 
directly  bear  upon  the  interests  of  the  great  body  of  People. 
With  reference  to  these  considerations,  Mr.  B.  undertook  to  prove, 
not  only  that  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  were  justifiable  in 
reporting  this  bill,  but  that  they  would  have  neglected  the  most 
solemn  obligations  of  duty  had  they  neglected  to  do  it. 

What,  Mr.  B.  asked,  was  now  the  situation  of  that  portion 
of  the  country,  included  within  the  Seventh  Judicial  District — 
the  States  of  Tennessee,  Kentucky,  and  Ohio?  In  the  year  1807, 
Congress  extended  to  them  the  benefits  of  the  Circuit  Court  sys- 
tem ;  and  what  had  since  then  occurred  ?  Look  at  the  position  and 
extent  of  those  States,  on  the  map,  said  Mr.  B.,  and  consider  that 
the  Judge  of  that  Circuit  Court  has  to  travel  over  them,  and  hold 
Courts  in  each  of  them  twice  in  each  year,  and  that,  in  addition  to 
the  performance  of  all  these  important  and  laborious  duties,  he  is 
obliged  to  attend,  annually,  the  session  of  the  Supreme  Court  in 


150  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

this  city.  A  man  must  be  more  than  mortal  who  could  perform 
all  these  duties.  Suppose  it  were  in  his  power,  for  a  time,  to 
dispatch  all  this  judicial  business,  yet,  unless  his  constitution  were 
equal  to  that  of  Hercules,  the  labor  to  which  he  would  be  exposed, 
must,  in  a  short  time,  destroy  him.  Such  was,  in  fact,  the  case, 
with  the  respectable  Judge  of  whom  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
had  spoken  in  terms  of  such  high  and  just  eulogium.  Is  not 
that  Judge,  at  this  moment,  stretched  on  his  sick  bed,  in  conse- 
quence of  his  attention  to  the  discharge  of  his  judicial  functions? 
Has  he  not  experienced  that  the  labor  you  impose  upon  him  is 
unmerciful,  and  such  as  you  ought  not  to  impose  upon  any  Judge 
in  this  country?  Mr.  B.  asked  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
to  consult  his  feelings,  and  say  whether  this  faithful  and  valuable 
public  servant  should  literally  be  killed  by  the  imposition  upon 
him  of  duties  which  it  was  impossible  for  any  human  constitution 
to  perform  ?  Although  this  was  a  strong  argument,  appealing  to 
the  feelings  of  members  in  favor  of  the  bill,  because  we  ought  not 
to  act  toward  others  as  we  would  not  to  ourselves,  yet,  said 
Mr.  B.,  let  us  look  at  it  in  another  point  of  view. 

Is  justice,  then,  administered  according  to  law,  in  the  three 
States  referred  to?  For,  Mr.  B.  said,  he  spoke  of  them  now, 
particularly  as  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  had  particularly 
directed  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  them.  He  held  in  his 
hand,  he  said,  the  memorial  from  the  bar  of  Nashville,  signed  by 
G.  W.  Campbell,  as  Chairman,  and  Felix  Grundy,  as  Secretary; 
gentlemen  whose  standing  was  well  known  to  this  House  and 
to  the  country.  The  memorial  detailed  such  facts  in  relation  to 
causes  depending  in  the  Federal  Court  in  that  part  of  the  country, 
that,  so  far  from  being  astonished  at  what  have  been  called  the 
clamors  of  the  West  on  this  subject,  Mr.  B.  said  that  he  was 
astonished  that  their  clamors  had  not  been  more  loud,  and  oftener 
reiterated  on  this  floor.  In  addition  to  the  facts  which  have 
already  been  stated  relative  to  this  part  of  the  subject  by  the 
Chairman  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  the  memorial  declares,  that 
"  the  Seventh  Circuit,  consisting  of  Kentucky,  Ohio,  and  Tennes- 
see, is  too  large  for  the  duties  of  it  to  be  devolved  on  one  man  " ; 
and  it  was  absolutely  impossible  for  the  Judge  assigned  to  this 
circuit,  to  fulfill  the  letter  of  the  law,  designating  his  duties. 
Such  has  been  the  delay  of  justice  in  the  State  of  Tennessee,  that 
some  of  the  important  causes  now  pending  in  their  Circuit  Courts, 
are  older  than  the  professional  career  of  almost  every  man  at  the 
bar. 


1826]  SPEECH  ON  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM  151 

What  answer  can  the  Committee  make  to  this  memorial? 
These  men,  whose  interest  and  inclination  it  was  to  have  the 
business  before  the  Court  determined,  have  come  forward,  and 
pledged  their  veracity  for  the  truth  of  such  facts,  as,  if  believed 
by  the  Committee,  will  conclusively  prove  that  the  delay  of 
justice  has  become  so  great  as  to  amount  to  its  denial.  Was  not 
such  a  state  of  things  a  mere  mockery  of  justice?  Was  it  not 
holding  up  a  delusion  to  the  People  of  that  State,  disappointing 
them  of  the  reality?  Was  it  not  the  greatest  injury,  he  asked, 
that  could  possibly  occur  in  a  new  country,  to  have  its  land  titles 
held  in  suspense  for  so  many  years?  If  this  memorial  is  to  be 
credited,  it  puts  the  question  at  rest,  as  to  the  necessity  of  a  new 
organization  of  the  present  system,  as  regards  the  State  of  Ten- 
nessee. 

And  how  was  the  fact  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  another 
District  in  the  same  Circuit?  The  Chairman  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee  had  stated  that,  in  that  Circuit,  two  thousand  causes 
had  been  disposed  of  within  the  last  three  years — of  which  state- 
ment the  gentleman  from  Virginia  had  made  a  very  ingenious  use. 
But  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  at  the  head  of  that  Com- 
mittee, had  not  stated  that  the  two  thousand  causes  had  been 
tried  and  determined  in  that  Court.  Mr.  B.  appealed  to  any  law- 
yer, in  this  House,  or  to  any  gentleman  experienced  in  the  busi- 
ness of  Courts,  whether  it  was  not  the  fact  that  nine-tenths  of  all 
the  cases  depending  in  Courts  never  require  a  trial,  being  cases 
involving  no  question  either  of  law  or  of  fact.  A  very  large 
portion  of  the  two  thousand  causes  decided  in  the  Kentucky  dis- 
trict were  of  that  description.  Of  what  description  were  the 
causes  which  remained  on  the  docket  of  that  Court?  A  great 
part  of  them  those  which  were  for  trial,  such  as  the  Court  have 
not  been  able  to  hear  and  decide.  The  causes  depending  at  this 
time  in  the  State  of  Kentucky,  are  between  nine  hundred  and 
one  thousand.  If  there  were  a  State  in  the  Union  in  which  it 
was  important  that  the  judicial  business  should  be  promptly  and 
certainly  transacted,  it  was  that  State.  With  regard  to  the  Dis- 
trict of  Ohio,  Mr.  B.  said,  he  had  also  in  his  hand  a  memorial 
from  the  Bar  of  that  State,  on  the  same  subject  and  to  the  same 
general  effect  as  the  representations  from  Tennessee  and  Ken- 
tucky. He  would  not  detain  the  House  to  read  it;  but  any 
gentleman  might  do  so  who  chose,  and  he  would  see  what  was 
the  situation  of  that  State  in  respect  to  the  administration  of 
justice,  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States. 


152  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

Let  us,  then,  said  Mr.  B.  inquire  what  are  the  evils  which 
arise,  under  the  present  system,  from  the  delay  of  justice. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  limited  the  powers 
of  the  Federal  Judiciary:  that  instrument  has  declared  that  the 
Courts  of  the  United  States  shall  have  jurisdiction  of  causes 
arising  between  citizens  of  different  States.  The  act  of  Congress 
has  further  limited  this  power,  and  declares  that  the  Federal 
Courts  shall  have  no  jurisdiction  in  any  such  case,  unless  the 
defendant  live  within  the  bounds  of  the  State  in  which  suit  is 
brought.  And  for  what  purpose  have  the  constitution  and  the 
law  given  this  authority  to  Courts  of  the  United  States  ?  That  a 
citizen  of  one  State  might  enjoy  the  same  privileges  as  the 
citizens  of  any  other  States.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution 
foresaw,  that,  from  local  causes,  jealousies  might  spring  up  in  the 
different  States  against  the  demands  or  the  titles  of  foreigners 
and  citizens  of  other  States.  Whilst,  therefore,  they  left  the  citi- 
zens of  the  same  State  to  settle  their  controversies  before  their 
own  Courts,  they  have  wisely  provided  tribunals,  to  be  called  into 
existence  by  the  authority  of  the  Federal  Government,  to  settle 
those  existing  between  foreigners  and  citizens.  Under  the  system 
now  in  operation,  the  citizens  of  the  State  in  which  the  suit  is 
instituted,  are,  in  almost  every  instance,  the  defendants. 

Who  are  then  particularly  interested  in  a  reformation  or  cor- 
rection of  the  defects  in  the  Judiciary  System  ?  Is  it  the  citizens 
of  the  Western  or  Southwestern  States?  Are  they  to  derive 
particular  advantages  from  the  prompt  determination  of  causes  in 
these  Courts?  Certainly  not:  because  no  man  can,  unless  in  a 
few  cases,  institute  a  suit  in  the  Federal  Judiciary  of  any  Western 
State,  unless  he  be  a  citizen  of  some  other  State,  or  an  alien. 
For  whose  benefit,  then,  would  the  proposed  change  in  the  system 
principally  operate?  Would  it  not  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  citi- 
zens of  other  States  than  those  in  which  the  administration  of 
justice,  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  is  now  defective? 
They,  and  they  chiefly,  would  avail  themselves  of  the  advantages 
which  a  reform  of  the  system  would  afford  to  suitors:  and,  of 
course,  said  Mr.  B.  by  omitting  to  establish  a  Federal  Judiciary 
competent  to  execute  the  laws  of  the  United  States  in  the  Western 
States,  you  do  not  so  much  injure  those  States,  as  you  deprive 
the  citizens  of  other  States  of  their  legitimate  remedy.  Then, 
sir,  this  mighty  bugbear  which  the  gentleman  has  raised  up  to 
your  view,  when  tested  by  the  principles  of  reason,  vanishes  into 
thin  air. 


^      OF  THE 

UNIVER 


1826]  -SPEECH  ON  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM  153 

What  was  now  the  situation  of  a  man  bringing  a  suit  in  the 
Circuit  Court  for  the  District  of  Kentucky?  Suppose  a  suit  to 
be  brought  in  that  Court  by  a  merchant  of  Philadelphia  against 
a  citizen  of  Kentucky.  The  greatest  temptation  was  held  out  to 
the  defendant,  to  set  up  an  unjust  and  a  fraudulent  defence;  be- 
cause, from  the  situation  of  business  in  that  Court,  the  case  could 
not,  perhaps  for  years,  be  brought  to  trial.  So  that  the  benefits  to 
arise  from  the  proposed  amendment  of  the  judiciary  system, 
would  go  chiefly  to  citizens  of  other  States  than  those  in  which 
the  change  in  the  system  would  take  effect. 

So  much,  Mr.  B.  said,  for  the  wants  of  Tennessee,  Ohio,  and 
Kentucky.  How  was  it  with  regard  to  other  portions  of  the 
Union?  What  was  the  situation  of  Louisiana,  including  New 
Orleans,  the  emporium  of  the  West  ?  The  commercial  intercourse 
of  that  City  with  the  rest  of  the  Union  and  with  foreign  nations 
gives  rise  to  causes  of  great  variety  and  importance.  In  that 
portion  of  the  country,  there  is  but  a  District  Judge,  with  no 
Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  assist  and  enlighten  his  judgment, 
or  to  bring  to  the  Supreme  Court  the  requisite  knowledge  of  the 
laws  and  practice  of  the  Courts  of  that  State.  There  was  a 
peculiar  reason,  imperatively  requiring  that  there  should  be  a 
Supreme  Court  Judge  to  hold  a  Circuit  Court  in  that  part  of  the 
country ;  which  was,  that  the  civil  law  regulates  the  proceedings  in 
the  Courts  of  that  State — a  law,  different  in  its  origin  and  prin- 
ciples from  the  common  law,  which  prevails  throughout  the  other 
States  of  the  Union.  Mr.  B.  considered  it  beyond  all  controversy 
settled,  from  these  facts,  that  there  was  an  absolute  necessity  for 
the  adoption  of  some  legislative  measure  to  remedy  the  evils 
growing  out  of  the  defective  system  now  established. 

I  now  come,  said  Mr.  B.  to  what  I  believe  to  be  the  great 
point  of  the  speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia — one  which 
demands,  and  certainly  will  receive,  the  deliberate  attention  of 
the  members  of  this  Committee.  He  is  apprehensive  that,  by 
means  of  this  bill,  the  Supreme  Court  is  to  become  a  political 
tribunal,  for  the  purpose  of  propagating  opinions  now  peculiar  to 
the  West,  and  of  overruling  determinations  already  made  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  and  of  changing  the  system  of  constitutional 
law  as  it  has  been  established  by  that  Court.  If,  sir,  I  could 
believe,  for  a  moment,  that  such  is  the  intention,  or  would  be  the 
consequence,  of  this  measure,  I  would  be  one  of  the  last  men  in 
the  United  States  to  support  it.  If  I  were  to  believe  that  that 
firm  and  beautiful  fabric,  which  the  Supreme  Court  has  already 


154  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

erected,  would  be  seized  by  rude  hands,  and  prostrated  in  conse- 
quence of  the  passage  of  this  bill,  I  would  myself,  at  once,  enter 
my  solemn  protest  against  it.  But  I  think  the  committee  will 
perceive  that  the  apprehensions  of  the  gentleman  were  the  vision- 
ary phantoms  of  his  own  imagination,  having  no  existence  in 
reality.  If  such  were  the  intention  or  expectation  of  the  People 
of  the  Western  States,  in  seeking  this  amendment  of  the  system, 
it  had  eluded  the  vigilance  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary. 
That  Committee  had  never  dreamt  of  such  a  project.  Sir,  said 
Mr.  B.  I  consider  the  integrity  and  independence  of  the  Judiciary 
as  the  Palladium  of  our  political  system,  and  that,  if  we  should 
ever  be  deprived  of  it,  either  by  fraud  or  by  force,  it  would  be  a 
vital  stab  to  our  political  institutions.  Therefore,  Mr.  B.  said,  if 
he  did  not  make  it  as  plain  as  light  that  the  gentleman's  apprehen- 
sions on  this  score  were  ideal  and  visionary,  he  would  not  for  a 
moment  ask  the  favor  of  the  committee  for  this  bill. 

Suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  what  no  one  could  believe, 
that  it  was  the  intention  of  all  the  West  to  overturn  the  settled 
decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  that  three  additional  Judges 
were  to  be  brought  upon  the  Bench,  in  pursuance  of  that  deter- 
mination. There  are  now  seven  Judges  on  the  Bench  of  that 
Court.  Does  the  gentleman  seriously  believe,  said  Mr.  B.  that 
the  three  Judges  to  be  appointed  will  be  able  to  overcome  the  firm- 
ness, the  inflexibility,  and  the  learning,  of  the  other  seven?  He 
must  first  shew  that  the  new  Judges  would  have  the  disposition, 
and  then  that  they  would  have  the  power,  to  rejudge  the  cases 
determined  by  the  Supreme  Court,  before  he  can  establish  his 
argument  of  danger  from  that  quarter.  The  danger  does  not  exist 
in  fact :  the  shadow  is  conjured  up  merely  to  deter  the  House 
from  passing  a  bill,  the  expediency  of  which  is  unquestionable. 

But  the  gentleman  had  also  introduced  into  the  discussion  of 
this  bill,  what  was  wholly  irrelevant  matter.  He  had  connected 
with  it  the  subject  introduced  by  a  gentleman  from  Kentucky, 
requiring  a  certain  number  of  the  Judges  of  the  Court  to  unite 
in  deciding  particular  cases,  on  which  proposition,  whenever  it 
came  before  the  House,  Mr.  B.  said  he  would  go  heart  and  hand 
with  the  gentleman  from  Virginia.  He  should  be  opposed  to 
any  measure  which  might  be  suggested  in  the  form  or  to  the 
effect  of  that  which  had  been  proposed.  One  ounce  of  experience, 
Mr.  B.  said,  was  worth  a  pound  of  theory.  The  institutions 
under  which  we  have  flourished — under  which  we  have  grown 
from  infancy  to  manhood,  ought  never  to  be  lightly  forsaken  or 


1826]  SPEECH  ON  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM  155 

abandoned.  The  perfection  of  our  system  is,  that,  whilst  one 
State  may  fume  and  rage  against  the  General  Government,  or 
establish  wild  positions  within  its  own  particular  government,  the 
other  States  are  cool  and  at  rest.  This  had  been  the  case  within 
the  State  which  he  himself  had  the  honor  in  part  to  represent. 
The  States  on  every  side  of  her  looked  on  without  participating 
in  her  feelings.  The  People  of  Pennsylvania  did  not  long  war 
against  the  Federal  Judiciary.  They  were  soon  restored  to  tran- 
quillity, and  now  were  in  harmony  with  the  General  Government. 
Another  State  was  now  in  a  similar  position  to  that  which  Penn- 
sylvania had  once  occupied;  and  he  trusted  that  the  cloud  which 
now  hangs  over  her  would  soon  dissipate,  and  that  she  would 
come  out  brighter  than  ever,  and  that,  in  proportion  to  the 
severity  of  her  present  experience,  would  be  the  progress  of  her 
future  prosperity.  Mr.  B.  said,  that  he  was  never  for  disturb- 
ing the  institutions  of  the  country,  or  its  settled  policy,  to  gratify 
the  feelings,  however  manly  they  might  be,  of  the  People  of  any 
particular  part  of  the  Union.  He  would  let  them  go  on,  perfectly 
satisfied  himself  that,  however  wrong  or  excited  for  a  time,  they 
might  be,  the  People  of  every  part  of  this  country  will  always 
come  right  in  the  end.  No  new  f angled  project,  such  as  that 
which  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  had  combatted,  should  ever 
have  his  sanction,  so  long  as  he  had  a  seat  on  this  floor.  But 
what  connection  had  it  with  the  propositions  contained  in  this 
bill  ?  None  at  all.  No  such  principle  was  to  be  found  in  the  bill ; 
and,  unless  it  was,  the  bill  ought  not  to  be  opposed  on  account 
of  what  it  did  not  contain. 

But  the  gentleman  had  proceeded  upon  the  principle  that  the 
three  new  Judges,  to  be  appointed  on  the  passage  of  this  bill, 
would  entertain  peculiar  notions  of  the  Constitution,  the  effect  of 
which  he  seemed  to  deprecate.  Is  there,  said  Mr.  B.  any  danger 
of  this  kind  ?  The  President  of  the  United  States  may.  if  he  thinks 
proper,  select  these  Judges  from  any  portion  of  the  Union,  other 
than  the  Western.  But  what  is  the  probability?  There  are  able 
men  scattered  over  all  the  Western  States,  abundantly  capable  of 
doing  honor  to  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court.  How,  then,  will 
the  selections  of  new  Judges  be  probably  made?  Partly  from 
one  portion  of  the  country,  and  partly  from  the  other,  within 
which  the  new  Courts  will  be  established.  Kentucky,  whom  the 
gentleman  appears  so  much  to  dread,  has  already  her  Judge.  She 
is  a  part  of  the  Seventh  Circuit,  and  will  continue  to  have,  for  her 
portion,  the  firm,  enlightened,  and  independent  Judge,  who  has. 


156  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

for  several  years,  been  arranged  to  that  circuit.  Even  if  Ken- 
tucky, therefore,  had  the  inclination,  which  Mr.  B.  said  he  did 
not  believe,  of  prostrating  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court,  she 
would  not  have  it  in  her  power.  When  did  Tennessee,  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Illinois,  or  Missouri,  set  up  any  peculiar  constitutional 
notions  ?  or  Louisiana  ?  Whoever  heard  of  Alabama,  of  Missis- 
sippi, contending  with  the  Courts  of  the  United  States  for  occupy- 
ing claimant  or  replevin  laws  ?  The  presumption,  therefore,  was, 
that  the  three  new  Judges,  to  be  selected  from  those  Western 
States,  would  not  be  infected,  as  the  gentleman  supposed,  with 
strange  doctrines,  but  would  move  on  as  harmoniously  and  inde- 
pendently as  the  members  who,  at  present,  compose  the  Supreme 
Court.  Kentucky,  at  least,  of  whom  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
had  so  many  fears,  was  supplied  with  a  Judge,  whose  judicial 
life  had  been  opposed  to  her  peculiar  notions.  The  probability 
was,  that,  in  the  selection  of  the  new  Judges,  not  a  single  one 
would  be  taken,  possessing  the  same  opinions  and  notions  which 
the  gentleman  had  attributed  to  the  State  of  Kentucky.  He 
asked,  then,  where  was  the  danger  that,  after  the  passage  of  this 
bill,  the  Supreme  Court  would  become  a  political  tribunal  ?  I  do 
not  pretend,  said  Mr.  B.  to  have  more  confidence  than  I  ought 
to  have  in  this  or  any  other  administration.  I  am  not  disposed  to 
bestow  on  the  Executive  of  the  country  more  confidence  than  the 
institutions  of  the  country  requires;  but  I  have  not  the  least 
apprehension  that  this  Executive,  or  any  other,  would  be  so  far 
forgetful  of  his  duty,  as  to  throw  a  firebrand  into  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  create  a  faction  there.  He  was  of  opinion,  upon  the 
whole,  that  the  gentleman  had  entirely  failed  in  the  attempt  to 
show  there  was  the  least  danger  that  the  Supreme  Court,  organ- 
ized as  proposed  by  this  bill,  would  become  a  political  Court. 

Another  objection  which  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  made 
— and,  Mr.  B.  said,  he  must  compliment  his  speech  by  saying, 
that  he  really  appeared  to  have  introduced  into  it  every  thing 
which  could  be  an  objection  to  this  bill — was,  that  Courts  of 
Appeal,  in  all  the  States  except  one,  consist  of  a  number  of  Judges 
not  exceeding  five;  and,  from  this  practice,  he  had  drawn  an 
argument,  that  nine  or  ten  Judges  would  be  too  many  to  compose 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  In  the  first  place,  Mr. 
B.  said,  he  denied  the  fact ;  and,  in  the  next  place,  admitting  the 
fact,  he  denied  that  there  was  any  weight  in  the  argument.  The 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  States,  are  selected  from  the 
mass  of  the  Bar  of  each  State:    They  are  generally  men  who 


1826]  SPEECH  ON  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM  157 

have  grown  grey  in  practice,  and  who  have  been  all  their  lives  ac- 
customed to  the  peculiar  laws  of  that  State.  They  come  upon  the 
Bench,  bringing  with  them  all  the  knowledge  necessary  to  cast 
judicial  light  on  the  subjects  they  may  have  to  touch. 

How  are  the  Judges  of  the  United  States  chosen?  They 
are  selected  from  an  extent  of  country  embracing  four  and  twenty 
distinct  and  independent  systems  of  law.  The  common  law,  to 
be  sure,  is  the  root  of  nearly  all  of  them ;  but,  for  a  long  period  of 
years,  each  State  has  gradually  been  establishing  a  local  policy 
and  a  local  system  of  laws,  peculiarly  adapted  to  its  situation 
and  the  habits  and  morals  of  its  People.  Does  it  follow,  then, 
because  five  Judges  are  a  sufficient  number  to  constitute  the 
Supreme  Court  of  any  one  State  of  the  Union,  that  a  Supreme 
Court  for  the  whole  Union,  embracing  these  twenty-four  distinct 
systems  of  laws,  can  be  properly  constituted  of  five  Judges?  If 
five  Judges  are  not  too  many  for  a  Supreme  Court  of  a  State, 
it  is  a  convincing  argument  that  nine  or  ten  are  not  more  than 
sufficient  for  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  Union. 

Another  consideration  ought  also  to  be  taken  into  view.  The 
systems  of  law  of  many  of  the  different  States,  are  radically 
variant;  and  a  man  who  had  practiced  all  his  life  in  Maine, 
going  to  Louisiana,  would  find  himself  wholly  unacquainted  with 
the  practice  in  that  State.  So  far  from  strengthening  his  case, 
Mr.  B.  therefore  thought  that  this  argument  of  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  was  wholly  against  him. 

But,  Mr.  B.  further  said,  he  denied  the  facts  assumed  by  the 
gentleman,  both  as  to  England  and  to  this  country.  Is  not  the 
Supreme  Court  of  New  York  composed  of  the  Senate  of  the 
State? 

(Mr.  Mercer  explained.  He  meant  a  court  composed  of 
judges,  not  of  Senators.  He  knew,  also,  that  the  House  of  Lords 
was  the  appellate  court  in  England.) 

Mr.  Buchanan  thanked  him  for  the  hint.  He  said,  the 
House  of  Peers  in  England  is  an  appellate  Court  nominally,  and 
only  nominally.  Whenever  a  writ  of  error  of  the  least  conse- 
quence is  before  them,  the  twelve  judges  are  summoned  to  give 
their  attendance ;  and  the  twelve  judges  are  thus,  in  England,  in 
fact,  the  Court  of  Appeals.  In  my  recollection,  there  never  has 
been  a  case  in  England,  in  which  the  House  of  Lords  has  decided 
in  opposition  to  the  opinion  of  the  judges. 

In  England,  there  is  also  the  Court  of  Exchequer  Chambers, 
consisting  of  the  twelve  judges,  and  nothing  is  more  common 


158  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

in  that  country  than,  when  the  judges  find  a  case  before  them 
is  difficult,  to  adjourn  it  to  the  Exchequer  Chamber  previous  to 
its  being  decided  from  the  bench.  So  that,  in  England,  the 
Court  of  Errors,  in  the  last  resort,  consists,  virtually,  of  twelve 
judges.  One  thing,  Mr.  B.  was  willing  to  admit,  that,  if  the 
Supreme  Court  were  not  to  be  composed  of  Circuit  Court  Judges, 
the  number  often  would  be  too  great.  The  perfection  of  a 
judicial  system  is  this :  that  each  judge  shall,  in  the  discharge  of 
his  duties,  feel  the  weight  of  personal  responsibility  resting  upon 
his  shoulders.  He  agreed  that,  in  a  crowded  court,  men  who 
want  talents  or  application  are  in  danger  of  becoming  mere  aye 
and  no  men,  voting  with  the  minority  or  majority;  and  there 
would  be  the  additional  danger,  in  that  case,  that  the  Executive, 
from  personal  preference,  might  place  on  the  bench  men  of  sub- 
ordinate qualifications,  supposing  that  they  might  be  lost  sight  of 
among  the  number.  The  great  advantage  of  our  system  and  of 
the  English  system  is,  that  the  Judges  of  their  Superior  Courts 
and  of  ours  are  compelled  to  try  causes  on  the  Circuit.  The 
judiciary  of  England,  like  ours,  stands  thus  on  high  ground.  In 
cases  of  civil  rights,  there  is  no  country  in  the  world  in  which 
they  are  better  protected  than  in  England. 

Nor  was  the  gentleman  correct  in  the  distinction  which  he 
had  drawn  between  the  Nisi  Prius  Courts  of  England  and  the 
Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States — in  drawing  which  he  had 
mistaken  what  had  fallen  on  that  point  from  the  Chairman 
of  the  Judiciary  Committee.  Most  of  the  important  cases  decided 
by  the  Superior  Courts  in  England,  Mr.  B.  said,  are  first  decided 
in  the  Courts  of  Nisi  Prius,  where  the  principle  of  law  is  first 
argued.  He  believed  this,  from  knowing  a  large  portion  of  the 
most  valuable  reports  of  the  cases  published  in  England  are  of 
proceedings  at  Nisi  Prius — precisely  as  in  the  Circuit  Courts  of 
the  United  States.  The  most  striking  difference  is  one  more  of 
form  than  of  substance.  The  Circuit  Courts  under  our  system 
render  a  final  judgment,  but  in  England  this  is  rendered  by  the 
Court  in  Bank,  from  which  the  Judge  of  Nisi  Prius  proceeds. 

Each  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  has 
highly  responsible  and  important  duties  to  perform  throughout 
his  circuit.  The  eyes  of  the  world  are  upon  him,  in  a  court 
in  which  he  must,  from  his  station,  act  the  principal  part.  He 
is  closely  scanned  by  the  members  of  the  Profession,  who,  of  all 
men,  are  best  calculated  to  decide  upon  the  abilities  of  a  Judge. 
The  standard  by  which  they  decide  upon  his  merits,  is  of  the 


1826]  SPEECH  ON  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM  159 

highest  character ;  because  it  is  expected,  from  his  elevated  station, 
that  he  shall  possess  great  talents  and  unbending  integrity,  and  a 
perfect  knowledge  of  the  laws  of  his  country.  This  situation,  and 
the  duties  attendant  upon  it,  is  an  ample  security  both  against  the 
appointment  of  incompetent  judges — and  against  indolent  habits 
after  they  are  appointed,  which  might  otherwise  result  from  the 
number  of  members  of  the  Court. 

Let  us  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  said  Mr.  Buchanan,  take  a  view 
of  the  comparative  merits  of  the  two  systems  proposed  for  our 
adoption.  The  system  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia, 
will  call  into  existence  ten  new  judges,  and  will  place  them  on 
the  benches  of  the  Circuit  Courts,  to  perform  the  same  duties 
which  are  now  devolved  upon  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court. 
It  contemplates  that  the  judges  of  the  Court  shall  continue  as  they 
are  for  the  present ;  but  shall  be  eventually  reduced  to  the  number 
of  five,  and  their  jurisdiction  be  exclusively  appellate. 

Why,  sir,  should  this  important  change  be  made,  when  it  is 
manifest  that  the  addition  of  two  or  three  judges  to  the  Supreme 
Court  will  be  abundantly  sufficient  to  supply  the  judicial  wants  of 
the  country?  No  complaints  have  ever  reached  my  ear  that 
justice  has  been  improperly  delayed  in  the  Circuits  East  of  the 
Alleghany  mountains.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  the  best  reason 
for  believing,  that  the  Courts  answer  every  purpose  intended  by 
the  Constitution  and  the  laws.  Indeed  some  of  the  circuits  might 
be  enlarged  if  it  were  necessary.  For  example,  the  fourth  cir- 
cuit consists  of  the  States  of  Maryland  and  Delaware  only,  and 
the  Judge  resides  within  a  very  short  distance  of  the  Capitol. 
Why,  then,  should  a  system  be  adopted,  neither  called  for  by  the 
wants  nor  the  wishes  of  the  People  of  the  Eastern  portion  of  the 
Union,  merely  because  the  present  system  is  inadequate  to  do 
justice  to  the  People  of  the  West?  Sir,  said  Mr.  B.  if  it  were 
necessary  for  the  prompt  and  efficient  administration  of  justice  to 
incur  the  expense  of  supporting  ten  new  Judges,  I  would  not 
hesitate  one  moment  in  voting  for  the  proposition;  but,  when 
there  is  not  the  least  occasion  for  such  a  measure,  its  adoption 
would  be  a  most  unjustifiable  squandering  of  the  public  treasure. 
It  would  be  creating  sinecures  in  the  six  Eastern  circuits,  and 
would  leave  both  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  Circuit 
Judges  without  sufficient  employment.  This  would  be  directly 
contrary  both  to  the  institutions  and  the  habits  of  this  country. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  argued  that  some  of  the 
present  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  are  now  becoming  old ;  that 


160  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

they  will  soon  not  be  able  to  endure  the  fatigue  of  riding  their 
circuits,  and  that  they  will  thus  be  compelled  to  resign.  Mr.  B. 
said,  there  was  no  man  in  the  country  who  felt  more  respect,  nay, 
more  veneration  for  the  Judges  of  that  Court,  than  he  did  him- 
self. He  trusted,  therefore,  no  person  within  the  sound  of  his 
voice,  would  for  one  moment  suppose,  that  the  declaration  he  was 
about  to  make  had  been  dictated  by  any  want  of  a  proper  regard 
for  the  Judges  who  composed  that  tribunal.  He  was,  however, 
firmly  of  the  opinion,  that  the  result  which  had  been  so  much 
dreaded  by  the  gentleman,  was  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  the 
existing  system. 

It  is  a  general  law  of  nature,  that,  when  age  prostrates  the 
vigor  of  the  body,  the  mind  loses  its  power  and  its  energy  in 
the  same  proportion.  As  a  general  rule,  the  Judge  who  becomes 
physically  incapable  of  travelling  over  his  circuit,  will  not  be 
competent  to  discharge  the  high  intellectual  duties  imposed  upon 
him  by  his  station.  There  are,  without  doubt,  many  exceptions 
to  this  rule;  but  Legislatures,  in  framing  a  general  system  for 
the  benefit  of  society,  must  be  governed  by  the  rule  and  not  by 
the  exception.  If  the  tendency  of  this  system,  then,  shall  be,  to 
drive  Judges  from  the  Bench,  who  have  ceased  to  be  able  to  per- 
form their  duties  to  the  country,  it  will  be  a  fortunate  result. 

Mr.  B.  said,  he  had  always  been  of  opinion  there  was  much 
wisdom  in  that  constitutional  provision  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  which  prevented  Judges  from  holding  their  seats  after  a 
certain  age.  It  is  probable  it  extends  too  far ;  but  if,  occasionally, 
it  should  deprive  the  People  of  the  services  of  men  who  would  still 
be  useful,  in  many  more  instances  it  will  preserve  the  country 
from  suffering  all  the  evils  which  flow  from  the  administration  of 
justice  by  an  incompetent  and  a  superannuated  Judge. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia,  in  reply  to  the  argument  of 
the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  has  stated 
that  he  admitted  it  might  become  necessary,  in  twenty  years,  to 
establish  a  Circuit  Court  system,  independent  of  the  Judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court;  and,  from  this  admission,  has  deduced  an 
argument  that  it  is  proper  to  establish  it  at  present.  Sir,  said 
Mr.  B.  I  cannot  feel  the  force,  though  I  may  acknowledge  the 
ingenuity  of  this  mode  of  reasoning.  A  statesman,  looking  for- 
ward to  the  future  destinies  of  his  country,  and  anticipating  the 
time  when  its  population  may  be  doubled;  when  its  foreign  and 
domestic  commerce  may  be  vastly  extended ;  and  when  a  greatly 
increased  intercourse  among  the  People  of  the  different  States 


1826]  SPEECH  ON  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM  161 

shall  give  birth  to  many  new  subjects  of  litigation,  predicts  that  it 
may  then  become  necessary  to  establish  the  judicial  system  recom- 
mended by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia;  that  gentleman  takes 
advantage  of  this  declaration,  and  asks,  because  it  may  become 
necessary  then,  that  we  shall  establish  it  now.  This  is  not  the 
manner  in  which  our  predecessors  have  acted.  They  provided 
for  the  wants  of  the  People  as  they  arose.  The  gentleman  from 
Virginia,  however,  would  wish  us  to  reverse  the  rule,  and  provide 
now  for  a  state  of  things  which  may  not  exist  for  half  a  century. 

In  my  own  opinion,  said  Mr.  B.,  the  time  will  come  when 
the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  shall  not  be  able  to  perform 
both  their  appellate  and  Circuit  Court  duties :  necessity  will  then 
compel  their  separation.  The  day,  however,  I  trust,  is  far  distant. 
I  am  willing  to  delay  that  event  as  long  as  possible — not  to  antici- 
pate its  arrival.     Let  posterity  provide  for  themselves. 

[When  Mr.  B.  had  proceeded  this  far  in  his  observations, 
the  hour  being  late,  Mr.  Webster  asking  Mr.  B.  to  give  way  for 
the  purpose,  moved  that  the  Committee  rise  for  to-day.] 

The  Committee  rose,  reported  progress,  and  obtained  leave  to 
sit  again ;  and 

The  House  adjourned. 

[Jan.  10.]  Mr.  Buchanan  again  took  the  floor.  Before  he 
resumed  the  train  of  observations  interrupted  by  the  adjournment 
of  yesterday,  he  said  it  would  be  necessary  for  him  to  advert  to  a 
few  palpable  and  prominent  mistakes  in  points  of  fact,  which 
had  been  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia, (Mr.  Mercer,)  in 
his  speech  on  this  subject.  He  was  not  aware  that  they  existed 
to  the  extent  in  which  they  do,  until  he  had  an  opportunity,  last 
evening,  of  reading  the  printed  report  of  his  speech.  It  was 
necessary  to  advert  particularly  to  them,  lest  certain  facts,  being 
taken  for  granted,  arguments  might  have  weight  which  were 
founded  on  them. 

In  the  first  place  then,  said  Mr.  B.,  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  laid  the  foundation  of  one  of  his  arguments,  on  this 
fact :  that,  in  East  Tennessee,  there  is  no  Circuit  Court  established 
by  law.  This  is  not  the  case,  sir.  There  is  a  Circuit  Court 
established  by  law  in  East  Tennessee,  though  certainly  the  present 
organization  of  the  Judiciary  renders  that  Court  unable  to  do 
justice  to  its  suitors. 

[Mr.  Mercer  said,  in  explanation,  that,  for  every  purpose  of 
his  argument,  the  fact  which  he  had  stated  was  not  affected  by 
the  gentleman's  correction.     He  had  been  informed,  by  a  gentle- 

11 


162  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

man  whom  he  supposed  to  be  familiar  with  the  fact,  that  the  court 
of  East  Tennessee  was  a  District  Court.  He  had  so  understood 
on  further  inquiry,  at  the  Clerk's  office.  Having  understood, 
moreover,  that  the  Judge  of  that  circuit  had  never  attended  that 
Court,  he  had  not  thought  it  necessary  to  examine  the  law  on  that 
subject,  but  took  for  granted  the  correctness  of  what  he  had 
heard.  Having,  however,  furnished  many  other  cases  of  District 
Courts  on  both  sides  of  the  Alleghany,  to  support  his  argument, 
he  did  not  know,  that  the  mistake,  into  which  he  had  been 
led,  was  at  all  material  to  the  argument.] 

Mr.  Buchanan  resumed. 

The  explanation  of  the  gentleman,  (said  Mr.  B.,)  does  not 
militate  against  what  I  had  to  say  on  this  point.  The  fact  is, 
that  there  is  a  Circuit  Court  established  by  law,  in  East  Tennes- 
see. He  did  not  now  state  it  as  an  argument,  but  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  in  regard  to  which  the  gentleman  was  in  error. 

Another  mistake  made  by  him,  was  in  supposing  that  there 
could  be  any  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  from  the  Northern 
District  of  the  State  of  New  York.  The  law  gives  no  such 
appeal.  An  appeal  lies  from  the  District  Court  to  the  Circuit 
Court  of  the  State,  and  any  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court,  in 
cases  arising  within  that  District,  must,  therefore,  come  from  the 
Circuit  Court. 

The  gentleman,  again,  had  stated  that  the  reason  of  the  great 
increase  of  business  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States, 
for  the  Kentucky  District,  was,  that  the  residents  of  that  State 
were  in  the  habit  of  making  nominal  assignments  of  demands,  and 
of  lands,  in  that  State,  to  citizens  of  other  States,  in  order  to 
bring  the  cases  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  Court, 
which  swelled  the  amount  of  causes  in  that  Court.  It  was  im- 
possible, Mr.  B.  said,  that  this  fact  could  exist.  The  judicial 
power  of  the  Federal  Government,  in  this  branch  of  it,  extends 
only  to  cases  arising  between  citizens  of  different  States,  or 
between  citizens  and  aliens :  and,  if  the  law  allowed  of  a  nominal 
transfer  of  title  by  a  citizen  of  Kentucky,  to  a  citizen  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, for  the  mere  purpose  of  bringing  his  case  into  the  Circuit 
Court,  all  the  barriers  established  by  the  Constitution,  to  separate 
the  Federal  Judiciary  from  that  of  the  States,  were  at  once  broken 
down  and  prostrated.  On  the  contrary,  the  Federal  Courts  had 
always  decided,  that  a  transfer  for  this  purpose,  gave  to  those 
Courts  no  jurisdiction  whatever.  The  argument  of  the  gentle- 
man, therefore,  founded  on  a  mistake  as  to  fact,  could  not  have 
any  operation  on  the  minds  of  the  Committee. 


1826]  SPEECH  ON  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM  163 

In  another  part  of  his  printed  speech,  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  had  declared  that  there  was  the  same  opportunity  for  an 
appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  from  a  District  Court,  having  circuit 
powers,  that  there  was  from  a  Circuit  Court.  In  this,  also, 
said  Mr.  B.,  the  gentleman  has  mistaken  the  fact.  In  cases 
where  a  Judge  of  the  Supreme  Court  sits  with  a  District  Judge, 
and  there  is  a  division  of  opinion  between  the  Judges  on  the 
bench,  whether  the  matter  in  controversy  be  great  or  small, 
whether  it  be  in  a  civil  or  criminal  case,  an  appeal  lies  from  that 
Court  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  But  such 
an  appeal  does  not,  nor  cannot  lie  from  the  District  Court, 
because  no  such  case  can  exist  The  decision  of  the  District 
Court,  having  Circuit  Court  powers,  is  final,  in  all  cases  in  which 
the  sum  in  controversy  does  not  exceed  two  thousand  dollars; 
and  that  is  one  of  the  reasons,  and  the  principal  reason,  why  there 
are  so  few  appeals  from  several  of  these  District  Courts. 

In  another  part  of  his  printed  speech,  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  had  asked  this  question :  Whoever  heard  of  expediting 
the  decisions  of  a  body  of  men  by  increasing  the  number  of  those 
who  were  to  make  the  decision  ?  I  answer,  nobody.  I  know  of 
no  such  argument,  said  Mr.  B.  as  that  to  which  this  question 
applies.  If  such  an  argument  were  attributed  to  the  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts,  to  whom  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  was 
replying,  that  gentleman  certainly  never  made  it.  The  object 
of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  in  reporting  this  bill,  was  not 
to  prevent  delay  in  the  business  of  the  Supreme  Court.  On  the 
contrary,  a  different  bill  had  been  reported  with  that  view,  the 
purpose  of  which  was  to  make  the  terms  of  the  Supreme  Court 
longer.  This  bill  was  not  reported  to  expedite  the  business  of 
the  Court  of  Errors,  but  its  principal  object  is  to  carry  justice  into 
those  parts  of  the  country  in  which  it  is  not  now  duly  admin- 
istered. 

There  was  a  tone  running  through  this  printed  speech,  Mr. 
B.  said,  which  he  was  sorry  to  see,  and  which  he  did  not  expect 
from  the  gentleman  from  Virginia.  If  it  did  not  contain  attacks 
on  the  motives  of  the  committee  in  reporting  this  bill,  he  could 
not  comprehend  the  meaning  of  the  language  employed.  Mr.  B. 
here  quoted  the  passages  of  the  speech,  in  the  following  words : 
"  The  object  of  the  bill  is  not  to  expedite  justice,"  &c.  &c.  "  The 
alteration  of  this  court  is  then  required  for  political  purposes,  and 
no  other,"  &c.  &c. 

Is  this,  said  Mr.  B.  such  language  as  is  due  from  the 
gentleman  to  the  Judiciary  Committee?    Does  he  suppose,  for  a 


164  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

single  moment,  or  if  he  do,  does  any  other  gentleman  suppose, 
that  the  Judiciary  Committee,  in  reporting  this  bill,  was  governed 
by  the  low  and  grovelling  motive  of  a  desire  to  turn  the  Supreme 
Court  into  a  political  instrument  ? 


Mr.  Buchanan  resumed.  As  he  wished  to  finish  his  remarks 
as  soon  as  possible,  he  said  he  should  not  again  yield  the  floor  for 
the  purpose  of  explanation.  When  he  did  so  just  now,  he  did  ex- 
pect the  purpose  of  the  gentleman  was  to  make  an  explanation  and 
not  an  argument.  And  now,  after  all  he  had  said,  he  felt  at  a  loss 
to  determine  whether  the  gentleman  meant  to  deny  or  not  the 
imputation  cast  by  his  reported  speech,  upon  the  committee.  Un- 
derstanding him,  however,  to  disclaim  any  impeachment  of  the 
motives  of  the  committee,  Mr.  B.  said  he  would  not  trouble  him- 
self any  further  with  that  part  of  the  case. 

Having  thus,  said  Mr.  B.,  done  justice  to  the  committee, 
and  to  myself  as  one  of  that  committee,  and  having  pointed  out 
some  of  the  matters  in  which  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  was 
entirely  mistaken,  omitting  to  notice  others,  the  noticing  of 
which  might  be  considered  an  useless  consumption  of  time,  I 
proceed  to  make  a  few  other  remarks,  which  it  is  necessary  for 
me  to  offer  on  this  important  subject. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  that  he  would  conclude  his  remarks,  by 
presenting  two  additional  views  of  the  subject.  What  will  be  the 
probable  effect  of  the  system  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia,  (Mr.  Mercer)  upon  the  Judges  themselves  of  the  Su- 
preme Court?  and  what  will  be  the  effect  upon  the  authority  and 
weight  of  their  decisions  in  the  estimation  of  the  People?  Sir, 
said  Mr.  B.,  there  are  but  few  men  in  existence  who  would  volun- 
tarily, and  as  a  matter  of  choice,  devote  themselves  to  the  attain- 
ment of  that  minute  knowledge  of  the  common  law,  which  it  is 
indispensable  that  a  judge  should  possess.  Other  sciences  may 
have  their  votaries,  who  will  worship  at  their  shrine  for  their 
own  sake.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  this  is  not  often  the  case  as 
it  regards  the  common  law.  Nothing  but  a  continually  operating- 
sense  of  official  or  professional  duty,  can  urge  men  to  travel 
through  its  dry  and  intricate  mazes. 

When,  sir,  we  proceed  one  step  further,  it  will  be  admitted 
that  the  nature  of  that  man's  taste  must  be  most  extraordinary 
who  could  relish  the  study  of  the  twenty-four  distinct  codes  of 
municipal  regulations  which  prevail  in  the  twenty-four  States  of 


1826]  SPEECH  ON  JUDICIARY  SYSTEM  165 

the  Union,  and  patiently  travel  over  the  hundred  volumes  in  which 
they  are  contained.  And  yet  it  is  necessary  that  a  Judge  of  the 
Supreme  Court  should  possess  this  species  of  knowledge.  Estab- 
lish the  Circuit  Court  system,  and  how  will  he  acquire  it  ?  Would 
the  literary  leisure  which  he  will  enjoy — would  any  consider- 
able portion  of  the  ten  months  in  each  year  during  which  he  may 
be  without  employment,  be  devoted  to  the  task  of  travelling  over 
this  barren  waste  ?  I  think  I  may  boldly  answer,  No.  His  time 
could  be  so  much  more  agreeably,  and,  if  he  were  not  a  judge,  so 
much  more  usefully  employed,  that  he  would  naturally  neglect  this 
kind  of  knowledge.  If  he  even  were  to  devote  a  portion  of  time 
to  its  acquisition,  it  would  answer  the  purpose  but  in  an  imperfect 
degree.  The  truth  is,  such  knowledge  cannot  be  obtained,  and, 
after  it  has  been  acquired,  it  cannot  be  preserved,  except  by  con- 
stant practice.  There  are  subjects  which,  when  the  memory  has 
once  embraced,  it  retains  forever.  It  has  no  such  attachments 
for  acts  of  Assembly  and  acts  of  Congress,  or  for  their  exposi- 
tions. This  species  of  knowledge,  under  the  present  system,  will 
always  be  possessed  by  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court ;  because, 
in  the  performance  of  their  circuit  duties,  they  are  placed  in  a  situ- 
ation in  which  it  is  daily  expounded  to  them,  and  in  which  they 
are  daily  compelled  to  decide  questions  arising  upon  it.  Change 
this  system,  make  them  exclusively  judges  of  an  appellate  court, 
and  impose  no  other  duty  upon  them  except  that  of  delivering  a 
few  opinions  in  bank  each  year,  and  you  render  it  highly  probable 
that  their  knowledge  of  the  common  law  will  become  gradually 
more  and  more  faint,  and  that  they  will  altogether  lose  the  recol- 
lection of  the  peculiar  local  laws  of  the  different  States.  It  is 
the  constant  Circuit  Court  employment  imposed  upon  the  judges 
of  England  and  the  United  States,  which  has  rendered  them  what 
they  are. 

What  effect  would  the  proposed  change  produce  upon  the 
authority  and  moral  influence  of  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  in  the  minds  of  the  People?  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance 
that  they  should  hold  the  judgments  of  that  tribunal  in  the  highest 
veneration.  Next  to  doing  justice,  it  is  important  to  satisfy  the 
People  that  justice  has  been  done.  This  confidence  on  their  part, 
in  the  Judiciary  of  their  country,  produces  that  contentment  and 
tranquillity  which  is  the  best  security  against  sudden  and  danger- 
ous political  excitements.  The  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  now 
enjoy  this  confidence  in  an  eminent  degree.  But,  sir,  change  the 
constitution  of  the  Court,  remove  the  Judges  from  the  public  eye, 


166  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

place  them  here  in  the  City  of  Washington,  and  let  them  compose 
an  appellate  tribunal  only,  and  what  will  be  the  consequence  when 
this  tribunal  shall  be  brought  into  collision  with  State  laws  and 
excited  State  authorities?  Is  there  not  great  danger  that  it  will 
become  odious?  The  Circuit  Judges  which  you  would  appoint, 
will  naturally  occupy  the  same  place  in  public  opinion  now  held 
by  the  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

When  this  distant  tribunal  shall  find  it  necessary  to  overrule 
their  decisions,  in  cases  of  deep  public  interest,  that  circumstance 
will  necessarily  create  additional  prejudice  in  the  minds  both  of 
the  Circuit  Judges  and  the  People,  and  thus  increase  the  mass  of 
discontent.  It  is,  therefore,  of  the  utmost  importance  that  your 
Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  shall  travel  over  circuits,  that  they 
shall  personally  show  themselves  to  the  country  in  the  able  and 
honest  discharge  of  their  high  duties,  and  that  they  shall  thus 
acquire  that  public  confidence  which  never  fails  to  follow  exalted 
worth  when  it  is  brought  home  to  the  personal  observation  of  the 
community.  The  Supreme  Court,  amidst  the  storms  of  faction 
and  of  opposition,  have  hitherto  pursued  a  steady  and  independent 
course.  They  have  now  acquired  a  most  extensive  popularity 
throughout  the  country ;  and,  even  in  those  States  in  which  their 
decisions  have  been  most  violently  opposed,  the  highest  respect 
has  been  felt  for  the  Judges  by  whom  they  were  pronounced — 
because  they  have  had  an  opportunity  of  knowing  personally  that 
they  were  both  great  and  good  men.  No  suspicion  has  ever  arisen 
against  their  personal  or  judicial  integrity.  Would  the  Supreme 
Court  have  enjoyed  the  same  good  fortune,  if  the  judges  had 
been  entirely  secluded  from  public  observation,  and  been  confined, 
in  the  discharge  of  their  important  duties,  to  a  room  in  this 
Capitol  ? 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  made  the  language  of  the 
gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  on  this  branch  of  the  subject, 
to  mean  that  which  he  never  intended,  and  which  a  fair  con- 
struction of  it  will  not  warrant;  that  the  Judges  should  go  to 
the  circuit  for  the  sake  of  seeking  popularity,  and,  with  this 
view,  to  ascertain  what  effect  their  decisions  might  have  upon 
the  People.  It  was  his  opinion,  and  one  which  he  thought  could 
not  be  shaken,  that  they  should  perform  circuit  duties,  that  thus 
the  People  might  see  and  know  and  respect  them,  and  they 
might  observe  the  effect  of  their  decisions  on  society.  That  they 
might  know,  as  men  of  experience,  what  was  their  operation  on 
the   community.     Of   all   human   creatures,    a   popular-hunting 


1826]     APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  FORTIFICATIONS        167 

judge  is  the  most  contemptible.  His  object  is  generally  de- 
feated, because  the  good  sense  of  the  People  almost  always  leads 
them  eventually  to  discover  what  is  his  true  character. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  again  and  again  at- 
tempted to  excite  our  fears  by  declaring  that,  if  the  system 
proposed  by  the  committee  were  adopted,  the  Supreme  Court 
was  in  danger  of  being  converted  into  a  political  tribunal.  Is 
there  not  much  greater  danger,  if  the  other  side  of  the  question 
should  prevail?  Would  a  court,  composed  of  ten  judges,  scat- 
tered over  the  surface  of  this  vast  country,  be  more  liable  to  the 
influence  of  political  intrigue,  than  five  judges  residing  in  the 
City  of  Washington?  Is  this  atmosphere  so  pure  that  there 
would  be  no  danger  from  such  a  residence  ?  A  large  portion  of 
the  People  of  this  country  hold  a  different  opinion.  They  think 
this  atmosphere  is  more  tainted  than  that  of  any  other  portion 
of  the  country.  If  the  Supreme  Court  should  ever  become  a 
political  tribunal,  it  will  not  be  until  the  Judges  shall  be  settled 
in  Washington,  far  removed  from  the  People,  and  within  the 
immediate  influence  of  the  power  and  patronage  of  the  Exec- 
utive. 

Mr.  B.  thanked  the  committee  sincerely  for  their  attention. 
He  said  the  subject  was  dry  and  uninteresting  in  its  nature,  and 
it  therefore  must  have  required  the  exercise  of  much  patience,  on 
their  part,  to  follow  him,  as  they  had  done,  through  the  remarks 
which  he  had  submitted  to  them. 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  27,  1826, 

ON  THE  APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  FORTIFICATIONS.1 

•  Mr.  Buchanan  said  he  should  vote  in  favor  of  the  post- 
ponement, for  reasons  entirely  different  from  those  which  had 
been  urged  by  any  other  gentleman.  He  would,  therefore,  take 
leave  to  state  them  to  the  House.  Before  he  did  this,  however, 
he  felt  himself  bound  to  notice  the  remarks  which  had  been 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  New  York,  (Mr.  Storrs,)  upon  the 
observations  which  had  been  made  by  his  colleague,  (Mr.  Steven- 
son.) 

The  gentleman  from  New  York,  (Mr.  Storrs,)  thinks  it 
wonderful  that  my  colleague  should  ask  for  more  time  to  make 
himself  acquainted  with  the  subject.     Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  I  would 


'Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  1,  p.  1184. 


168  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

ask  how  new  members  could  have  obtained  information?  Must 
it  not  have  been  by  intuition?  It  was  impossible  that  they 
should  have  procured  it  in  any  other  manner.  The  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  has  informed  us  this  day  that 
the  system  of  fortifications,  about  which  we  have  heard  so  much, 
and  which  we  are  now  called  upon  to  carry  into  execution,  was 
never  published,  but  remains  filed  among  the  private  archives 
of  this  House.  Did  the  new  members  know  this  fact?  Cer- 
tainly not.     How  then  were  they  to  obtain  the  information? 

[Mr.  M'Lane  here  explained,  and  stated,  he  had  said  that 
only  so  much  of  the  plan  as  it  was  deemed  politic  to  conceal 
was  among  the  private  papers  of  the  House.] 

Mr.  B.  said,  that  he  had  understood  the  gentleman  per- 
fectly. That  part  of  the  plan  which  was  all  important;  which 
it  was  deemed  necessary  to  conceal  from  foreign  nations,  lest 
they  might  take  advantage  of  the  information  which  it  imparted, 
had  not  only  not  been  exhibited  to  the  new  members,  but  they 
had  not,  before  this  day,  been  informed  of  its  existence.  This 
was  the  case  as  it  regarded  himself,  as  well  as  most  of  the  old 
members  of  the  House.  Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  has  the  gentleman 
from  New  York,  himself  (Mr.  Storrs)  read  all  the  reports 
which  have  been  presented  to  this  House  at  different  periods 
upon  the  subject  of  fortifications?  Is  he  well  acquainted  with 
their  whole  contents?  I  will  venture  to  hazard  the  assertion, 
much  respect  as  I  feel  for  his  talents  and  his  industry,  that  I 
can  propound  to  him  twenty  questions  of  importance,  having 
immediate  relation  to  the  fortifications  provided  for  by  this  bill, 
not  one  of  which  he  can  answer. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  it  is  not  necessary,  judging  from  the  prin- 
ciples advanced  by  that  gentleman,  that  he  should  be  acquainted 
with  the  subject,  concerning  which  he  has  been  called  upon  to 
act.  He  has  introduced  a  new  and  dangerous  doctrine  into  this 
discussion,  which  I  trust  and  hope  never  will  prevail.  Confi- 
dence in  an  Executive  Department  was,  with  him,  to  take  the 
place  of  knowledge.  And  why?  Because,  forsooth,  we  are 
not  Engineers;  and,  therefore,  we  are  incapable  of  judging. 
The  will  of  the  Engineer  Department  is  thus  to  become  the  law 
of  this  House.  The  principles  which  the  gentleman  has  advo- 
cated carry  him  to  this  fearful  extremity. 

[Mr.  Storrs  explained.  He  said,  that  he  hoped  the  gentle- 
man from  Pennsylvania  would  only  answer  what  he  had  said: 
that  he  had  urged  that  the  House  ought  not  to  take  on  itself  the 


1826]     APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  FORTIFICATIONS         169 

responsibility  of  details  which  belonged  to  the  other  Depart- 
ments: that  he,  for  one,  would  not  consent  thus  to  invert  the 
responsibility  of  the  Government.  As  to  his  own  knowledge  on 
the  subject  of  location  of  the  forts,  and  the  science  of  Engineer- 
ing, Mr.  S.  said,  that  he  had  no  doubt,  and  willingly  confessed, 
that  the  gentleman  could,  indeed,  put  to  him  a  catechism  which 
he  could  not  answer;  and  he  might,  perhaps,  justly  add,  that  the 
whole  House,  including  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania, 
would  be  apt  to  answer  it  about  as  correctly  as  he  himself  could.] 

Mr.  B.  thanked  the  gentleman  for  the  compliment  to  him- 
self. He  did  not  know  whether  it  was  sincere  or  not.  He 
would,  however,  follow  the  French  maxim,  and  when  expres- 
sions were  susceptible  of  two  constructions,  he  would  take  them 
in  the  most  favorable  sense.  Now  for  the  argument.  Sir,  said 
Mr.  B.,  the  gentleman  in  his  explanation  has,  in  substance, 
repeated  the  doctrine  I  imputed  to  him.  I  will  state  to  the 
House  what  my  opinion  is  upon  the  subject,  and  it  is  very 
different,  indeed,  from  that  advanced  by  the  gentleman.  We 
should  repose  a  proper  degree  of  confidence  in  the  reports  made 
to  this  House  by  the  Executive  Departments,  whilst  we  believe 
them  to  be  worthy  of  confidence.  It  is  our  duty,  however,  to 
examine  and  to  consider  their  representations;  to  rejudge  their 
judgment;  and  to  decide  upon  their  recommendations,  justly 
and  impartially.  We  must,  in  every  matter  of  legislation,  act 
upon  our  own  responsibility.  We  cannot  release  ourselves  from 
it,  and  impose  it  upon  the  Department,  as  the  gentleman  has  con- 
tended. I  think,  therefore,  that  my  colleague  has  given  no 
just  occasion  for  the  remarks  which  the  gentleman  had  thought 
proper  to  make. 

Mr.  B.  said,  he  felt  friendly  to  the  erection  of  fortifications. 
He  was  not  willing  that  we  should  retrace  our  steps ;  but  thought 
we  should  proceed  cautiously  and  wisely,  having  a  proper  regard 
to  what  our  means  would  justify.  In  his  opinion,  his  colleague 
(Mr.  Stevenson)  had  erred  in  comparing  the  fortifications  pro- 
posed to  be  erected  in  this  country,  with  those  in  the  interior  of 
Europe.  It  was  true,  that,  in  the  annals  of  modern  warfare, 
these  fortifications  had  been  left  behind  and  disregarded;  and 
Generals  had  penetrated  into  the  countries  whose  frontiers  had 
been  fortified,  without  fear  and  without  danger.  This  argu- 
ment, however,  did  not  apply  to  our  fortifications.  They  are 
intended  to  be  placed  upon  our  coasts,  our  bays,  and  at  the 
mouths  of  our  large  rivers,  to  afford  protection  to  our  great 


170  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

commercial    Cities   against   Naval   attacks.     Indeed,   they   may- 
become  important  for  the  defence  of  our  own  Navy. 

Notwithstanding,  said  Mr.  B.,  that  I  shall  vote  for  carrying 
into  effect  a  judicious  system  of  fortifications,  yet  I  think  there 
is  the  strongest  reason  for  granting  the  delay  which  has  been 
asked.  In  1822,  Congress  had  this  subject  before  them.  The 
Department  then  asked  for  five  hundred  thousand  dollars.  The 
House  got  all  the  information  they  could  obtain :  they  discussed 
the  question  fully,  and  decided  that  three  hundred  and  seventy 
thousand  dollars  was  sufficient.  They  granted  this  sum;  and, 
for  the  first  time,  designated  the  particular  objects  to  which  it 
should  be  applied.  They  did  not  then  act  upon  the  doctrine  of 
confidence  which  has  been  recently  avowed;  but  reduced  the 
estimate  of  the  Department.  In  1823,  five  hundred  thousand 
dollars  was  granted,  and  I  approved  of  the  measure.  I  con- 
sidered this  sum  was  then  established  as  the  annual  appropria- 
tion, in  analogy  to  the  appropriation  granted  for  the  gradual 
increase  of  the  Navy.  Since  that  time,  however,  the  appropria- 
tions for  fortifications  have  increased  in  such  rapid  progression, 
that  we  are  now  asked  for  the  sum  of  seven  hundred  and  ninety- 
five  thousand  dollars  for  the  present  year.  In  addition  to  this 
sum,  there  remained  in  the  Treasury,  on  the  first  day  of  the 
present  year,  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars 
of  the  appropriations  for  the  last  year  which  had  not  been 
expended.  If  you  pass  this  bill,  therefore,  you  will  grant  nearly 
a  million  of  money  to  be  applied  to  the  erection  of  fortifications 
during  the  year  1826.  In  the  short  time  which  has  elapsed 
since  1822,  you  will  have  nearly  trebled  your  annual  appropria- 
tion. I  should  not  now  object  to  five  hundred  thousand  dollars; 
but,  before  I  can  vote  for  a  greater  sum,  I  wish  to  know  precisely 
the  means  of  the  Treasury  for  the  present  year,  and  compare 
them  with  the  necessary  objects  of  expenditure.  We  have  been 
told,  said  Mr.  B.,  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means,  that  there  will  be  sufficient  money  in  the  Treasury, 
gradually  to  pay  our  debt,  between  this  time  and  the  end  of  the 
year  1829;  and,  in  the  mean  time,  the  sum  asked  for  by  the 
present  bill,  may  be  applied  to  fortifications,  and  all  the  other 
proper  expenditures  of  the  country  may  be  made. 

[Mr.  McLane  here  observed,  that  he  had  not  stated  the 
whole  national  debt  would  be  paid  in  1829:  it  was  the  six  per 
cent,  debt — the  war  debt,  to  which  he  had  referred.] 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  did  not  misunderstand  the  gentle- 


1826]     APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  FORTIFICATIONS        171 

man  from  Delaware.  He  understood  him  to  mean  the  six  per 
cent,  war  debt,  and  would  have  so  expressed  it,  if  the  gentleman 
had  permitted  him  to  proceed.  The  gentleman  had  also  de- 
clared that,  within  that  period  of  time,  a  large  portion  of  the 
debt  due  to  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  might  be  liquidated. 
Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  on  this  subject  I  doubt  exceedingly.  Much 
respect  as  I  feel  for  the  opinion  of  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means,  and  for  that  of  their  Chairman,  I  must  still  be 
permitted  to  doubt,  until  I  see  and  examine  their  report.  We 
have  been  told,  that  report  will  soon  be  made  to  the  House. 
We  shall  then  be  able  to  decide  what  proportion  of  the  public 
money  we  can,  with  propriety,  apply  to  fortifications — and  what 
to  other  objects.  We  should  not  take  so  much  for  one  important 
object,  as  will  prevent  us  from  making  any  appropriations  to 
objects  of  equal  importance.  The  sum  which  we  think  it  pru- 
dent to  withdraw  from  the  payment  of  our  debt,  should  be  fairly 
distributed;  so  as  to  give  a  part  to  all  the  great  objects  of 
national  interest. 

Mr.  B.  concluded  by  saying,  it  was  probable  we  should 
gain  time  by  the  delay  of  one  week;  and  that  the  bill  might,  in 
that  event,  be  passed  as  soon,  as  if  it  were  now  urged  upon  the 
consideration  of  the  House. 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  30,  1826, 

ON  THE  APPROPRIATIONS  FOR  FORTIFICATIONS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  was  very  glad  the  gentleman  had 
asked  him  the  question,  for  he  did  not  like  to  interrupt  gentle- 
men, when  speaking,  in  order  to  explain.  But  he  thought  the 
gentleman  had  not  done  him  justice  entirely,  in  that  and  some 
other  particulars.  I  do  not  mean,  said  Mr.  B.  to  be  drawn 
in  as  an  enemy  to  fortifications.  I  never  have  been,  and  never 
will  be,  opposed  to  the  system.  My  object,  on  Friday  last,  was 
to  procure  a  postponement  of  the  bill,  and  not  to  defeat  it. 
Mr.  B.  made  some  observations  explanatory  of  the  alleged  unex- 
pended balance,  and  then  said,  that,  with  regard  to  a  comparison 
between  the  Navy  and  fortifications,  he  had  uttered  but  one 
sentiment;  which  was,  that,  in  1823,  the  appropriation  for  forti- 
fications had  been  fixed   at  five  hundred  thousand   dollars,   in 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  1,  p.  1204. 


172  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

analogy  to  the  annual  appropriation  of  like  amount,  for  the 
increase  of  the  Navy;  and  that  he  was  not  willing  to  go  further 
now,  until  he  had  seen  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means.  He  had  not  said  that  he  would  not  go  farther — 
he  did  not  say  so  yet.  Mr.  B.  concluded  by  thanking  the  gentle- 
man for  the  compliment  he  had  paid  him,  and  could  sincerely 
say  to  the  gentleman,  in  the  words  of  a  celebrated  author,  "  Laus 
est  a  te  laudari." 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  20,  1826, 

ON  A   PROPOSED  AMENDMENT  TO  THE    CONSTITUTION.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  offered  the  following : 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  should  be  so  amended,  as  to  re-establish 
the  third  clause  of  the  first  section  of  the  second  article  of  the  original  Consti- 
tution ;  except  that  portion  thereof  which  confers  the  power  of  electing  the 
President  upon  the  House  of  Representatives. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  should  be  so  amended,  that,  in  case  no 
election  shall  be  made  by  the  Electors,  then  the  States  shall  choose  the 
President,  from  the  two  highest  upon  the  list,  in  such  manner  as  the  Legisla- 
tures thereof  may  direct ;  each  State  having  one  vote. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  it  was  far  from  his  intention  to  enter 
into  any  detailed  explanation,  at  this  time,  of  the  amendment 
which  he  had  proposed.  For  the  purpose,  however,  of  direct- 
ing the  attention  of  the  House  to  them,  he  would  merely  observe, 
that  the  object  of  the  first  resolution  was,  to  restore  the  original 
provision  of  the  Constitution,  in  regard  to  the  election  of  Presi- 
dent and  Vice-President,  to  the  time  when  that  election  would 
devolve  upon  the  House  of  Representatives. 

The  second  resolution  proposes,  that,  in  that  event,  the 
sovereign  States  of  this  Union  shall  choose  the  President  from 
the  two  highest  on  the  list.  When  no  election  is  made  by  the 
Electors,  it  simply  confers  upon  the  States  themselves  the  power 
which  is  now  exercised  by  their  Representatives.  It  proposes 
that,  in  making  the  choice,  the  States,  and  not  their  Represen- 
tatives in  this  House,  shall  each  give  one  vote,  in  the  manner 
which  their  respective  Legislatures  may  prescribe. 

Mr.  B.  said,  he  did  not  propose  the  last  amendment  because 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  1,  p.  1417. 
The  proposed  amendment  is  also  printed  in  House  Report  19,  19  Cong. 
1  Sess. 


1826]  TO  GENERAL  JACKSON  173 

he  thought  it  the  best  possible  method  of  taking  the  election  from 
the  House  of  Representatives;  but  because,  after  much  reflec- 
tion, he  believed  it  was  the  only  one  practicable.  That  consum- 
mation was  devoutly  to  be  wished  by  all,  and  by  none  more  than 
the  Representatives  themselves;  and  he  felt  persuaded  that  no 
amendment  for  that  purpose  will  ever  prevail,  which  does  not 
leave  the  balance  of  power  among  the  States,  as  it  at  present 
exists. 

Mr.  B.  said  he  did  not  intend  to  interfere  with  the  debate 
now  progressing.  In  case  the  House  should  appoint  a  Select 
Committee,  he  wished  merely  that  these  propositions  may  be 
placed  in  such  a  situation  that  they  may  be  referred  to  that 
committee. 


TO   GENERAL  JACKSON.1 

j^         P  Washington  8  March  1826. 

It  is  with  the  most  sincere  &  lively  pleasure  I  inform  you 
that  the  convention  which  met  at  Harrisburg  on  the  4th  Instant, 
for  the  purpose  of  nominating  a  Governor,  after  they  had 
unanimously  recommended  the  re-election  of  Governor  Shulze, 
adopted  the  following  resolution  by  a  vote  of  98  to  7. 

Resolved,  That  our  confidence  in  the  patriotism,  talents  and  inflexible 
integrity  of  Gen :  Andrew  Jackson,  is  unimpaired ;  and  that  his  conduct  during 
the  pendency  of,  and  after,  the  late  election  of  President  of  the  United  States 
is  deserving  the  unqualified  approbation  of  the  American  people. 

Of  the  seven  members  who  voted  against  this  resolution, 
there  were  six,  as  we  are  informed  by  private  letters,  who 
declared  themselves  to  be  your  friends ;  at  the  same  time  stating  as 
a  justification  for  their  vote  that  the  convention  had  been  assem- 
bled for  the  purpose  of  nominating  a  Governor  and  for  that 
only,  and  they  had  no  instructions  from  their  constituents  to 
proceed  farther.  This  was  the  fact:— and  the  only  reason  why 
you  were  not  formally,  as  you  have  been  substantially  nominated 
as  our  candidate  at  the  next  Presidential  election.  Jonathan 
Roberts  your  old  friend  was  the  only  individual  of  the  seven 
who  was  really  opposed  to  you. 

I  feel  proud  that  my  native  State  has  thus  early  shewn 
herself  to  the  world  to  be  true  to  her  principles  and  to  be  beyond 


Jackson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress. 


174  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

the  influence  of  Executive  patronage.  It  had  been  industriously 
circulated  here,  that  she  was  wavering  and  the  friends  of  the 
administration  had  been  or  had  pretended  to  be  flattered  into 
this  belief.  Their  dreams  will  now  vanish.  The  news  from 
Harrisburg  produced  a  strong  sensation  to  day  in  the  House, 
as  it  was  wholly  unexpected  except  by  a  few  of  us  Pennsyl- 
vanians. 

In  addressing  you  this  letter  I  cannot  refrain  from  intro- 
ducing the  name  of  Molton  C.  Rogers  late  Secretary  of  State 
of  Pennsylvania.  He  has  been  from  the  beginning  a  uniform,  a 
decided,  a  discreet  and  a  most  efficient  friend  of  our  cause.  That 
the  cause  will  triumph  over  the  Union  at  the  next  election  is 
not  only  my  ardent  wish;  but  my  firm  belief.  Many  of  the 
former  friends  of  Mr.  Crawford  are  now  decidedly  your  friends, 
and  the  remainder  are  almost  universally  opposed  to  the  re- 
election of  Mr.  Adams  and  have  shewn  a  strong  disposition  to 
harmonize  with  us. 

The  Senate  have  not  yet  disposed  of  the  Panama  Mission. 
It  is  expected  they  will  pass  upon  it  finally  during  the  present 
week.  In  my  opinion  from  what  I  learn  there  will  probably  be 
a  majority  in  its  favor. 

Mr.  M'Duffies  proposed  amendment  to  the  constitution  so 
far  as  it  relates  to  districting  the  United  States  will  not  have  a 
large  vote  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  I  do  not  think 
it  has  seventy  friends  in  that  body.  There  will  I  think  be  a 
majority — though  perhaps  not  a  constitutional  one,  in  favor  of 
taking  the  election  from  the  House,  leaving  the  balance  of  power 
among  the  several  states  to  remain  in  its  present  condition.  God 
send  that  we  should  be  successful  in  this  important  measure. 

Col :  Gibson  requests  me  to  give  his  "undiminished  love  "  to 
you.  Please  to  present  my  kindest  and  best  respects  to  Mrs. 
Jackson  and  believe  me  to  be  your  sincere  and  devoted  friend. 

James  Buchanan. 
General  Andrew  Jackson. 


REMARKS,  MARCH  11,  1826, 

ON  THE  DISMAL  SWAMP  CANAL.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  he  had  risen  to  make  a  few  remarks,  in 
reply  to  the  arguments  of  the  gentleman  from  Georgia  and  the 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  1,  pp.  1618-1620. 


1826]  DISMAL  SWAMP  CANAL  175 

gentleman  from  New  York.  Each  of  the  gentlemen  had  dis- 
claimed the  intention  of  entering  upon  the  constitutional  ques- 
tion; and  yet  both  of  them,  in  the  course  of  their  remarks,  had 
touched  upon  it  more  than  once. 

If  there  be  any  principle  of  constitutional  law  which,  at 
this  day,  should  be  considered  as  settled,  it  is,  that  Congress 
have  the  power  to  aid  Internal  Improvements,  by  subscribing  for 
stock  in  companies  incorporated  by  the  States.  That  right  is 
the  only  one  proposed  to  be  exercised  by  the  present  bill.  Gentle- 
men talk  about  entering  the  territory  of  a  State,  and  making 
improvements  therein  without  its  consent.  Does  this  bill  pro- 
pose that  the  General  Government  shall  enter  the  territory  of 
any  State  ?  that  it  shall  erect  any  toll  gates  ?  that  it  shall  exercise 
any  act  of  sovereignty?  or  perform  any  other  act  by  which  it 
can  possibly  come  into  collision  with  any  State  of  this  Union? 
Not  at  all.  It  is  a  mere  proposition  to  take  stock ;  and  if  this 
Government  cannot  do  that,  what  can  it  do?  Suppose,  for  the 
sake  of  the  argument,  (though  he  feared  such  a  case  was  not 
very  likely  to  happen)  that  there  should  at  any  time  be  a  surplus 
of  money  in  the  Treasury.  Must  it  lie  idle,  useless  to  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  useless  to  the  People  ?  Is  it  a  violation  of  the  Con- 
stitution to  invest  it?  Deplorable,  indeed,  is  our  condition,  if 
we  must  stand  still  and  gaze  upon  our  money,  and  have  no  power 
to  put  it  into  circulation  for  purposes  of  public  usefulness,  by 
becoming  the  proprietors  of  stock.  I  am  not,  certain,  said  Mr. 
B.,  what  is  called  a  high  constitutional  man;  but  yet  I  could 
never  see  how  the  Constitution  could  be  brought  to  bear,  with 
the  least  plausibility,  against  the  exercise  of  this  power.  We 
have,  already,  stock  to  the  amount  of  7,000,000  dollars  in  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States;  and  we  have  subscribed  liberally  to 
the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  Canal. 

Sir,  I  will  ask  the  gentleman  if  he  believes  it  is  correct  to 
bring  the  grievances  of  New  York  upon  this  floor?  Is  it  wise — 
is  it  statesman-like  to  say,  that,  because  the  Government,  six  or 
seven  years  ago,  was  in  a  state  of  embarrassment,  and  unable  to 
aid  the  New  York  canal,  that  it  is  therefore  never  to  aid  any 
work  of  general  importance  within  the  limits  of  any  other  State? 
Does  that  gentleman  think  that  New  York  will  never  agree  to 
help  any  of  her  sister  States,  because  this  Government  was  unable 
to  help  her?  Sir,  I  believe  better  things  of  the  State  of  New 
York.  I  have  a  high  opinion  of  her  magnanimity.  I  believe 
that  she  will  ever  be  readv  to  stretch  forth  her  hand  to  her 


176  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1836 

weaker  sisters,  when  the  object  in  view  is  of  a  character  to 
promote  the  general  prosperity.  The  gentleman  tells  us  to  do 
things  like  the  United  States.  He  would  have  us  to  march  from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific:  to  pass,  at  a  bound,  over  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  and  to  undertake  some  vast  system  of  Internal  Im- 
provements which  should  be  worthy  of  ourselves.  The  gentle- 
man from  Georgia  also  tells  us  that  he  will  never  agree  to  become 
a  proprietor  of  stock  in  this  little  Dismal  Swamp  Canal.  Let 
him  see  a  splendid  system,  then  he  will  go  for  the  whole.  But, 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  say  that,  with  perhaps  one  exception,  no  Gov- 
ernment, in  any  part  of  the  world,  ever  did  enter  upon  a  general 
system  of  improvement  of  any  kind,  and  did  not,  in  the  issue, 
lose  half  its  money.  This  Government  has  afforded  a  striking 
example  of  the  truth  of  my  remark. 

I  am  not  for  waiting  for  any  such  system.  The  principle 
of  self-interest  is  a  sufficient  excitement,  and  a  sufficient  guar- 
antee, in  all  such  undertakings.  Let  them  be  conducted  by 
individual  enterprise :  and  when  we  enter  in  only  as  stockholders 
with  those  who  have  risked  their  fortune  on  the  success  of  the 
work  they  are  conducting,  we  have  the  best  security  that  it  will 
be  well  executed,  and  that  our  money  will  not  be  thrown  away, 
unless,  indeed,  the  whole  undertaking  is  to  be  one  great  fraud. 
But  I  trust  we  are  not  to  be  prevented  from  doing  right,  by  any 
apprehension  lest  a  New  York  broker  should  come  in,  and,  by 
some  stroke  of  legerdemain,  should  get  the  whole  concern  into 
his  own  hands.  I  hope  we  are  not  to  be  terrified  by  such  spectres 
of  the  imagination.  The  gentleman  tells  us  not  to  exercise  a 
doubtful  power  in  an  odious  manner.  An  odious  manner,  sir? 
Rely  upon  it,  such  interference  as  is  involved  in  a  subscription 
of  stock,  instead  of  being  odious,  is  precisely  the  most  popular 
mode  in  which  the  power  of  the  Government  can  be  exercised. 
You  come  in  collision  with  no  State,  or  State  right.  You  aid 
the  State  and  get  its  gratitude  and  good  opinion.  The  gentle- 
man has  urged  another  argument,  equally  without  foundation. 
He  would  have  us  to  go  to  work  like  brokers :  we  must  narrowly 
examine  the  stock,  and  see  if  it  will  yield  six  per  cent. ;  and  we 
are  to  do  nothing  that  an  individual  would  not  do,  who  is 
governed  by  no  motive  but  that  of  self-interest. 

But,  sir,  so  long  as  individuals  are  certain  that  they  can 
get  six  per  cent,  from  any  stock  whatever,  be  assured  we  shall 
never  be  troubled  by  any  solicitations  to  subscribe.  The  gentle- 
man seems  to  forget  that  Congress  should  have  other  objects. 


1826]  MR.  POINSETT'S  NEGOTIATIONS  177 

much  higher,  much  nobler,  much  wiser,  in  view  than  a  six  per 
cent,  calculation.  He  seems  to  forget  that  an  object  which  con- 
duces to  the  public  defence,  is  one  legitimately  within  the  scope 
of  our  legislation.  We  are  sent  here  to  consult  the  best  interests 
of  the  Union,  the  prosperity  of  its  foreign  and  domestic  com- 
merce, and  its  security  against  the  attacks  of  an  enemy.  These 
objects,  sir,  we  shall  never  effect  while  we  are  governed  by  the 
cent,  per  cent,  notions  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York.  This 
bill  stands  on  the  same  ground  as  the  bill  for  a  subscription  of 
stock  in  the  Delaware  and  Chesapeake  Canal,  (and  the  gentle- 
man may  rest  assured  that  Company  is  not  insolvent.)  I  hope, 
sir,  that  what  has  been  done  to  aid  that  great  and  useful  improve- 
ment will  not  be  withheld  from  the  Company  created  by  the 
Legislatures  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  to  accomplish  an 
object  of  the  same  nature. 

The  gentleman  has  made  a  calculation,  for  the  purpose  of 
convincing  the  Committee  that  vessels,  such  as  might  navigate 
this  canal,  could  not  pass  along  the  Sounds,  which  lie  to  the 
South  of  it,  on  account  of  their  shallowness.  Well,  sir,  and 
because  we  cannot  pass  the  whole  distance  to  the  St.  Mary's, 
are  we  not  to  subscribe  stock;  although  it  is  certified  to  us,  by 
the  Board  of  Engineers,  that  vessels  can  pass  a  distance  of  one 
hundred  and  sixty-nine  miles  South  of  the  Canal,  in  nine  feet 
water?  The  force  of  this  argument  may  be  felt  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Georgia,  but  I  confess  it  is  entirely  lost  upon  me. 


REMARKS,  MARCH  25,  1826, 

ON  MR.  POINSETT'S    NEGOTIATIONS  WITH  MEXICO.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  was  glad  the  gentleman  from  Ken- 
tucky had  brought  this  subject  before  the  House.  Upon  read- 
ing the  documents  which  accompanied  the  President's  message, 
on  the  subject  of  the  Mission  to  Panama,  (said  Mr.  B.)  I  con- 
fess I  felt  alarmed  at  the  declaration  of  our  Minister  to  Mexico. 
I  am  well  acquainted  both  with  the  intelligence  and  the  prudence 
of  that  gentleman,  and,  therefore,  it  is  my  belief  this  declaration 
was  not  made  without  authority.  This  belief  is  strengthened 
by  a  knowledge  of  the  fact,  so  far  as  we  can  judge  from  the 
documents,  that  the  Secretary  of  State  has  never  disavowed,  or 


1  Register  of  Debates,  iq  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  2,  pp.  1767- 
1768. 

12 


178  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

even  disapproved,  the  conduct  of  that  Minister.  Under  these 
circumstances,  the  avowal  of  the  pledge  to  the  Mexican  Govern- 
ment, which  Mr.  Poinsett  has  made,  is  well  calculated  to  alarm 
the  fears  and  the  jealousy  of  the  People  of  the  United  States. 

Under  what  circumstances  was  this  pledge  avowed,  and 
what  was  the  relative  situation  of  the  two  countries?  Our 
Minister  was  negotiating  a  commercial  treaty  with  Mexico,  and 
she  had  refused,  in  the  most  positive  terms,  to  grant  to  the 
United  States  a  privilege  which  she  had  extended  to  the  South 
American  Republics.  Upon  this  occasion,  he  claimed  for  us,  as 
a  matter  of  right,  all  the  privileges  which  had  been  granted  to 
them;  and  declared,  as  the  foundation  of  this  demand,  that  we 
stood  pledged  to  protect  them  against  any  attack  which  might  be 
made  upon  their  independence,  by  any  European  nation  except 
Spain ;  and,  in  that  event,  we  should  be  bound  to  bear  the  brunt 
of  the  contest. 

Now,  Sir,  if  Mexico  should  be  induced,  by  this  positive 
declaration,  to  grant  us  commercial  privileges,  which  she  would 
not  otherwise  have  granted,  I  ask  if  we  are  not  bound,  in  honor 
and  in  good  faith,  to  carry  it  into  effect  ?  The  expressions  used 
by  our  Minister  were  not  mere  idle  diplomatic  phrases.  They 
were  used  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  commercial  advantages; 
and  were  the  basis  upon  which  those  advantages  were  to  rest. 
They  were  held  out  as  the  consideration — as  the  inducement,  to 
that  Government ;  and  it  is  fairly  to  be  inferred,  from  the  docu- 
ments, that  they  received  the  approbation  of  the  Secretary  of 
State.  It  is  time,  then,  the  American  People  should  inquire, 
and  should  distinctly  know,  whether  this  declaration  was  author- 
ized by  the  Executive  branch  of  the  Government. 

Mr.  B.  said,  it  was  not  his  intention,  at  this  time,  to  bring 
into  discussion,  even  indirectly,  the  Mission  to  Panama.  Upon 
that  important  subject,  he  would  then  express  no  opinion.  He 
wished  to  know,  precisely,  whether  Mr.  Poinsett  had  exceeded 
his  instructions  or  not.  He  believed  this  knowledge  was  all- 
important.  If  the  Executive  had  determined  to  abandon  the 
course  of  policy  which  had  been  heretofore  pursued,  and  to  enter 
into  entangling  alliances  with  any  Nation,  the  People  should 
be  informed  of  this  determination.  If  such  were  not  the  inten- 
tion, is  it  honorable :  is  it  consistent  with  our  National  character ; 
is  it  not  a  violation  of  the  public  faith,  to  hold  out  a  pledge,  for 
the  purpose  of  deceiving  Mexico,  and  then,  after  we  shall  have 
obtained  the  privileges  which  we  desired,  to  mock  at  their  ca- 


1826]  MR.  POINSETT'S  NEGOTIATIONS  179 

lamity  in  the  day  of  danger?  Our  intercourse  with  all  Nations 
should  rest  upon  principles  of  justice.  What  would  the  Govern- 
ment of  Mexico  think  of  us,  what  would  they  have  a  right  to 
think,  if  our  Minister  should  hold  one  language  to-day,  and, 
after  we  had  obtained  from  them  what  we  wanted,  we  should 
disclaim  his  authority  to-morrow?  In  every  point  of  view,  Mr. 
B.  thought  the  subject  was  well  worthy  of  inquiry. 


REMARKS,  MARCH  27,  1826, 

ON  MR.   POINSETT'S  NEGOTIATIONS  WITH  MEXICO.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  would  vote  in  favor  of  the  amend- 
ment which  had  been  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  New  York, 
(Mr.  Verplanck)  and  against  all  the  subsequent  amendments 
which  had  been  moved.     He  would  proceed  to  give  his  reasons. 

I  presume,  said  Mr.  B.,  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts, 
(Mr.  Webster)  among  others,  alluded  to  me,,  when  he  stated 
that  some  gentleman  had  expressed  an  opinion  that  our  Minister 
to  Mexico  had  authority  to  make  the  declaration  which  he  made 
to  the  Government  of  that  country.  I  had  other  grounds  for 
this  belief  beside  mere  opinion.  It  rests  upon  the  uniform  policy 
of  the  Executive  branch  of  this  Government,  for  several  months 
past,  as  disclosed  by  the  documents  upon  our  table. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Webster)  is  not 
certain  there  is  blame  any  where.  This  opinion,  in  my  judg- 
ment, cannot  be  supported.  Had  not  Mexico  refused  to  us  the 
same  treaty  stipulation  which  she  had  granted  to  the  Southern 
Republics?  Had  not  the  negotiation  arrived  at  a  crisis?  Was 
it  not  about  to  be  dissolved?  In  this  critical  moment,  our  Min- 
ister, for  the  first  time,  declared  they  should  grant  us  the  same 
advantages,  because  we  stood  in  the  same  relative  situation 
towards  them,  with  the  other  Republics  of  this  hemisphere.  We 
stood  pledged  to  support  both  their  independence  and  their  form 
of  government,  against  any  Power,  except  Spain,  which  should 
attempt  to  interfere  with  either.  If  Mr.  Poinsett  has  obtained 
a  treaty  upon  false  and  unfounded  declarations  of  this  nature,  he 
is  much,  very  much,  to  blame.  But  this  is  not  all.  He  has  pro- 
ceeded much  further.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  same  letter,  he 
states  as  follows :    "  I  then  recapitulated  the  course  of  policy 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  2,  pp.  1808- 
1810. 


180  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

pursued  towards  the  Spanish  Colonies,  by  our  Government,  which 
had  so  largely  contributed  to  secure  their  independence,  and 
enable  them  to  take  their  station  among  the  Nations  of  the 
Earth :  and  declared  what  further  we  were  ready  to  do  in  order 
to  defend  their  rights  and  liberties;  but  that  this  could  only  be 
expected  from  us,  and  could  only  be  accomplished  by  a  strict 
union  of  all  the  American  Republics,  on  terms  of  perfect  equality 
and  reciprocity." 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  I  wish  to  see  the  answer  of  the  Secretary 
of  State  to  Mr.  Poinsett's  letter.  In  that  letter  he  has  certainly 
given  a  full  and  candid  exposition  of  the  state  of  the  negotia- 
tion. It  brought  home  distinctly  to  the  knowledge  of  our  Govern- 
ment, what  kind  of  a  treaty  their  Minister  had  demanded,  and 
the  stipulations  which  he  had  made  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
it.  If  the  answer  to  this  letter  should  approve  his  conduct,  in 
general  terms;  nay,  if  it  should  be  silent  upon  the  subject,  the 
inference  is  irresistible,  that  our  Executive  wished  the  Mexican 
Government  to  grant  us  a  treaty,  under  the  impressions  which 
had  been  made  by  his  declarations.  If  they  had  not  resolved  to 
pursue  this  course  of  policy,  it  was  their  duty,  promptly  and 
decidedly,  to  disavow  the  declaration  of  their  Minister.  A  tacit 
assent  is  equally  strong,  and  equally  binding  with  an  express 
assent.  If  our  Government  should  obtain  and  accept  a  treaty 
upon  the  terms  stated  to  the  Mexican  Government  by  Mr.  Poin- 
sett, it  would  be  a  violation  of  every  principle  of  good  faith 
among  Nations,  afterwards  to  attempt  to  extricate  ourselves 
from  the  pledge,  by  declaring  that  he  had  no  instructions  to 
make  such  a  stipulation. 

Independent  of  any  express  instructions,  there  is  sufficient 
evidence  in  the  documents  before  us,  to  create  a  belief,  that  our 
Minister  was  not  mistaken  in  the  general  policy  and  views  of  the 
Executive.  When  our  Government  was  invited  to  send  Min- 
isters to  Panama,  the  terms  of  the  invitation  were  explicit;  they 
could  not  be  mistaken.  We  were  informed  that  the  two  prin- 
cipal subjects  which  would  engage  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
gress, so  far  as  the  United  States  were  concerned,  would  be  our 
"  resistance  or  opposition  to  the  interference  of  any  neutral  Na- 
tion, in  the  question  and  war  of  independence,  between  the  new 
Powers  of  the  Continent  and  Spain,"  and  our  "  opposition  to 
colonization  in  America  by  the  European  Powers."  Mr.  Obregon 
tells  us,  "  after  these  two  principal  subjects,  the  Representatives 
of  the  United  States  may  be  occupied  upon  others."     Having 


1826]  MR.  POINSETT'S  NEGOTIATIONS  181 

presented  this  plain  exposition  of  the  views  of  his  Government, 
he  invited  us  to  send  Representatives  to  the  Congress  of  Panama, 
"  with  express  instructions  in  their  credentials,  upon  the  two 
principal  questions."  The  letter  of  Mr.  Salazar  contains  sub- 
stantially, the  same  declarations. 

Does  the  answer  of  the  Secretary  of  State  contain  a  whisper 
of  dissent  from  the  terms  of  this  invitation?  Do  we  accept  the 
invitation  conditionally?  Do  we  declare  we  could  enter  into  no 
treaty  of  alliance,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  effect  the 
objects  which  the  Southern  Republics  had  in  view?  No,  Sir.  On 
the  contrary,  the  invitation  was  accepted  in  the  most  general 
terms.  There  is  one  part  of  the  letter  of  Mr.  Salazar  relating 
to  this  subject,  which  deserves  particular  attention:  He  states, 
that  "  this  is  a  matter  of  immediate  utility  to  the  American  States 
that  are  at  war  with  Spain,  and  is  in  accordance  with  the  repeated 
declarations  and  protests  of  the  Cabinet  at  Washington."  Was 
Mr.  Salazar  mistaken,  and,  if  he  were,  why  did  not  the  Cabinet 
correct  the  mistake?  Mr.  B.  observed,  that  he  thought  he  had 
sufficiently  shown  it  was  not  a  mere  opinion,  without  facts  to 
support  it,  which  had  induced  him  to  believe  Mr.  Poinsett  was 
authorized  to  make  the  declarations  which  he  had  made  to  the 
Mexican  Government. 

I  confess,  said  Mr.  B.,  it  appears  to  me,  that  the  great  dan- 
ger of  the  mission  to  Panama,  is,  that  our  Government  will  there 
pursue  this  course  of  policy.  If  I  shall  be  convinced  this  will  not 
be  the  case,  I  will  give  my  consent  to  the  mission.  As  to  Cuba 
and  Porto  Rico,  I  echo  the  sentiments  of  the  President  with  all 
my  heart.  I  would  not  agree  that  any  nation  on  earth  should 
wrest  those  islands  from  the  dominion  of  Spain.  With  the 
exception  of  England,  there  is  no  Government  in  existence  that 
I  would  not  rather  see  in  possession  of  them  than  the  Govern- 
ment of  Mexico. 

The  United  States  have  had  sufficient  experience  of  the 
inconvenience  and  the  danger  of  entangling  alliances.  We  once 
entered  into  such  a  treaty  with  France,  and  we  were  compelled 
to  buy  ourselves  off  at  a  great  sacrifice.  It  is  not  my  wish,  said 
Mr.  B.,  to  be  understood  that  this  Government  ought  not,  under 
any  circumstances,  to  defend  the  independence  of  the  Southern 
Republics.  The  principle  for  which  I  contend,  is,  that  we  should 
not  be  bound  to  do  so  by  treaty,  but  be  left  free  to  act,  with  a 
proper  regard  to  our  own  situation,  when  the  crisis  shall  arrive. 

This  resolution  should  be  referred  to  the  Committee  of  For- 


182  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

eign  Relations.  That  Committee  is,  in  its  nature,  confidential. 
Let  them  inquire,  in  the  first  place,  and,  if  they  want  more  infor- 
mation than  they  already  possess,  they  can  introduce  a  resolution 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  it,  by  the  authority  of  this  House. 
I  do  not  want  merely  the  instructions  which  were  given  to  Mr. 
Poinsett.  I  do  not  believe  he  received  any  express  authority  to 
form  a  treaty  of  alliance.  It  required  no  ghost  to  tell  us  that. 
I  wish  the  Committee  carefully  to  examine  all  the  documents 
which  have  been  published,  or  which  may  be  in  their  power,  and 
report  to  this  House,  whether  Mexico  may  not  have  been  de- 
ceived, whether  she  had  not  sufficient  authority  to  believe  we 
were  pledged  to  support  her  independence,  and  whether,  under 
this  false  impression,  she  might  not  grant  us  a  treaty,  accord- 
ing to  our  wishes.  It  is  better  to  send  the  subject,  at  once,  to 
that  Committee.  It  will  go  to  them  without  restriction.  It  can- 
not be  sent  to  the  President  in  that  manner.  We  can  only  ask 
from  him  for  such  information  as  may  be  communicated  without 
prejudice  to  the  public  interest.  It  is  for  these  reasons  that  I 
give  a  decided  preference  to  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  New  York. 


RESOLUTION,  APRIL  4,  1826, 

ON  THE  PANAMA  MISSION.1 

Mr.  Buchanan,  who  said  he  wished  to  offer  a  resolution.  He 
did  not  intend,  at  present,  to  enter  into  any  discussion  upon 
the  subject.  His  friend  from  Delaware  (Mr.  McLane)  had 
mainly  expressed  his  sentiments  upon  the  subject.  The  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts,  (Mr.  Webster)  had  objected  to  the 
amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Delaware,  that  it 
was  attaching  a  condition  to  the  resolution  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  Foreign  Relations,  unknown  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
country,  and  might  be  considered  as  an  instruction  from  this 
House  to  our  Ministers  at  Panama.  To  obviate  this  objection, 
upon  the  intrinsic  force  of  which  he  would  not  now  express  an 
opinion,  he  should  offer  the  resolution  which  he  would  read  to 
the  Committee : 

Resolved,  That,  whilst  this  House  regard  the  Republics  of  this  continent 
with  the  warmest  feelings  of  sympathy  and  friendship,  and  could  not  view 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  2,  p.  2029. 


1826]  FROM  GENERAL  JACKSON  183 

with  indifference  the  hostile  interposition  of  any  European  Power  against 
their  Independence;  yet  they  deem  it  inexpedient  to  depart  from  the  long 
settled  policy  of  this  country,  by  entering  into  an  alliance,  offensive  or 
defensive,  with  any  nation,  by  which  the  People  of  the  United  States  would 
deprive  themselves  of  the  power  freely  to  act,  in  any  crisis,  in  such  a  manner 
as  their  own  honor  and  policy  may,  at  the  time,  dictate. 

The  Committee  then  rose — and  in  the  House  the  resolution 
offered  by  Mr.  Buchanan  was  ordered  to  be  printed. 


FROM   GENERAL  JACKSON.1 

Hermitage  April  8th  1826. 
Dear  Sir 

I  received  by  due  course  of  mail  your  friendly  letter  of  the  8th  ult. — 
transmitting  a  resolution  passed  by  the  convention  at  Harrisburgh  in  which 
it  is  declared  "  that  their  confidence  in  me  is  unimpaired."  This  resolution 
adds  another  to  the  many  obligations  which  I  owe  to  the  republicans  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  which  shall  be  cherished  as  long  as  the  feelings  of 
gratitude  and  the  sentiments  of  patriotism  have  a  place  in  my  heart.  What 
greater  consolation  could  be  offered  to  my  declining  years  than  the  reflection 
that  my  public  conduct,  notwithstanding  the  difficulties  thro  which  it  has 
led  me,  can  still  be  honored  with  testimonials  so  distinguished  as  this  from 
the  enlightened  and  patriotic  Pennsylvanians ;  I  desire  no  greater. 

I  have  noted  your  remarks  relative  to  Mr.  Molton  C.  Rogers — every  in- 
formation I  have  reed,  concerning  him,  corroborates  your  account  of  him, 
and  I  have  no  doubt  he  fully  merits  the  high  character  he  sustains. 

We  have  received  the  result  of  the  Panama  question  in  the  Senate — from 
the  whole  view  of  the  subject  I  have  been  compelled  to  believe  that  it  is  a 
hasty  unadvised  measure,  calculated  to  involve  us  in  difficulties,  perhaps  war, 
without  receiving  in  return  any  real;  benefit.  The  maxim  that  it  is  easier  to 
avoid  difficulties  than  to  remove  them  when  they  have  reached  us,  is  too  old 
not  to  be  true :  but  perhaps  this  and  many  other  good  sayings  are  becoming 
inapplicable  in  the  present  stage  of  our  public  measures  which  seem  to  be  so 
far  removed  from  our  revolution  that  even  the  language  of  Washington  must 
be  transposed  in  order  to  be  reconciled  to  the  councils  of  wisdom !  I  hope  I 
may  be  wrong.  It  is  my  sincere  wish  that  this  Panama  movement  may  ad- 
vance the  happiness  and  glory  of  the  country,  but  if  it  be  not  a  commitment 
of  our  neutrality  with  Spain,  and  indirectly  with  other  powers,  as  for 
example  Brazil,  I  have  misconstrued  very  much  the  Justice  of  the  anath- 
emas which  have  been  pronounced  upon  the  assembly  at  Verona  as  well 
as  the  true  sense  of  the  principles  which  form  international  law.  Let  the 
primary  interests  of  Europe  be  what  they  may,  or  let  our  situation  vary  as 
far  as  you  please  from  that  which  we  occupied  when  the  immortal  Wash- 
ington retired  from  the  councils  of  his  country,  I  cannot  see  for  my  part 
how   it   follows   that   the   primary   interests   of   the   United    States   will  be 


1  Buchanan   Papers,  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.     This  letter  is 
imperfectly  printed  in  Curtis's  Buchanan,  I.  47. 


184  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

safer  in  the  hands  of  others,  than  in  her  own;  or  in  other  words,  that  it 
can  ever  become  necessary  to  form  entangling  alliances,  or  any  connection 
with  the  governments  of  South  America  which  may  infringe  upon  that 
principle  of  equality  among  nations  which  is  the  basis  of  their  independ- 
ence, as  well  as  all  their  international  rules.  The  doctrine  of  Washington 
is  as  applicable  to  the  present  as  to  the  then  primary  interests  of  Europe, 
so  far  as  our  own  peace  and  happiness  are  concerned,  and  I  have  no  hesi- 
tation in  saying  so  far  as  the  true  interests  of  South  America  are  concerned, 
maugre  the  discovery  by  Mr.  Adams  that  if  Washington  was  now  with  us 
he  would  unite  with  him  in  sending  this  mission  to  Panama.  No  one  feels 
more  for  the  cause  of  the  South  Americans  than  I  do,  and  if  the  proper  time 
had  arrived,  I  trust  that  none  would  more  willingly  march  to  their  defence. 
But  there  is  a  wide  difference  between  relieving  them  from  a  combination 
of  leagued  powers,  and  aiding  them  in  forming  a  confederation  which  can  do 
no  good  as  far  as  I  am  apprised  of  its  objects;  and  which  we  all  know,  let 
its  objects  be  the  best,  will  contain  evil  tendencies. 

Believe  me  to  be  with  great  respect,  your 

most  obdt.  servt. 

Andrew  Jackson. 


SPEECH,  APRIL  11,  1826, 

ON  THE  PANAMA  MISSION.1 

The  House  having  again  resumed  the  consideration  of  the 
report  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations,  approving  the  Mis- 
sion to  Panama,  with  the  amendments  proposing  a  qualification 
to  the  general  expression  of  approbation  thereof — 

Mr.  Buchanan  addressed  the  committee  as  follows : 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  cannot  say,  with  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia,  (Mr.  Powell)  who  spoke  first  in  this  debate,  that  I  am 
no  party  man.  To  a  certain  extent,  I  am  a  party  man.  It  is 
well  known,  that,  at  the  last  Presidential  election,  I  gave  my 
warm  and  decided  support  to  the  distinguished  individual  whom 
the  People  of  this  country  sent  to  the  House  of  Representatives 
with  a  large  plurality  of  Electoral  votes.  It  is  my  fixed  purpose 
to  give  the  same  individual  my  feeble  support,  in  the  next  contest. 
I  shall  consider  the  next  election  as  an  appeal  from  the  House 
of  Representatives  to  the  People,  for  the  purpose  of  reversing  a 
precedent  which  I  consider  dangerous  to  their  liberties.  To  this 
extent  I  am  willing  to  confess  myself  a  party  man;  as  I  never 
wish  even  to  be  suspected  of  fighting  under  false  colors. 

If,  however,  any  gentleman  upon  this  floor  has  intended  to 
charge  me  with  being  engaged  in  a  factious  opposition  to  the 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  2,  pp.  2168-2182. 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  185 

measures  of  the  present  Administration,  I  now  indignantly  cast 
back  the  charge  upon  him,  and  pronounce  it  to  be  unfounded.  A 
factious  opposition  consists  in  opposing  wise  measures,  because 
they  have  been  recommended  by  particular  men.  I  never  have, 
and  never  shall,  pursue  this  course.  It  would  be  as  impolitic 
as  it  is  unjust.  The  People  of  the  United  States  will  never 
sustain  such  an  opposition.  If  any  circumstance,  in  which  he 
had  no  concern  could,  in  my  native  State,  prostrate  the  illustrious 
individual  whom  she  still  delights  to  honor,  it  would  be,  that  his 
friends  in  Congress  were  concerned  in  factiously  opposing  the 
measures  recommended  by  the  present  Administration.  But  do 
gentlemen  expect  to  carry  everything  in  this  House  which  may 
be  proposed  by  the  executive,  merely  by  attempting  to  brand  the 
opposition  with  the  name  of  faction?  I  trust  that  such  is  not 
their  intention.     I  feel  certain  if  it  be,  they  will  be  disappointed. 

I  protest  against  the  measure  now  before  the  committee 
being  considered  a  party  measure.  I  am  willing  to  follow  the 
example  of  the  individual  to  whom  I  have  already  alluded,  and 
judge  the  tree  by  its  fruits.  I  have  not  a  single  feeling  of  per- 
sonal hostility  against  the  present  chief  magistrate  of  this  Union. 
I  shall  always  endeavor  to  do  him  justice.  There  is,  however,  in 
my  opinion,  just  cause  of  complaint  against  his  friends  on  this 
floor,  for  endeavoring  to  make  the  subject  before  the  committee 
a  party  question.  The  cause  of  liberty  in  South  America  is  the 
cause  of  the  whole  American  people  not  of  any  party.  An  oppo- 
sition to  that  sacred  cause  never  will,  never  can,  be  cherished 
by  the  friends  of  that  individual  who  refused  to  accept  a  mission 
to  Mexico,  merely  because  Mexico  was  then  suffering  under  the 
despotic  sway  of  a  tyrant  and  a  usurper.  Nothing  but  a  strong 
sense  of  duty  will  induce  any  gentleman  upon  this  floor  to  resist 
his  own  inclinations,  and  to  stem  what  seems  to  be  the  popular 
current,  by  giving  his  vote  against  this  mission. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  discuss  the  subject  under  the  various 
aspects  in  which  it  has  presented  itself  to  my  mind. 

I  know  there  are  several  gentlemen  on  this  floor,  who  ap- 
prove of  the  policy  of  the  amendments  proposed,  and  wish  to 
express  an  opinion  in  their  favor;  and  who  yet  feel  reluctant  to 
vote  for  them,  because  it  is  their  intention  finally  to  support  the 
appropriation  bill.  They  think,  if  the  amendments  should  be 
rejected,  consistency  would  require  them  to  refuse  any  grant  of 
money  to  carry  this  mission  into  effect.  I  shall,  therefore,  ask 
the  attention  of  the  committee,  whilst  I  endeavor  to  prove  that 


186  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

there  would  not,  in  any  event,  be  the  slightest  inconsistency  in 
this  course. 

I  assert  it  to  be  a  position  susceptible  of  the  clearest  proof, 
that  the  House  of  Representatives  is  morally  bound,  unless  in 
extreme  cases,  to  vote  the  salaries  of  Ministers  who  have  been 
constitutionally  created  by  the  President  and  Senate.  The  ex- 
pediency of  establishing  the  mission  was  one  question,  which 
has  already  been  decided  by  the  competent  authority;  when 
the  appropriation  bill  shall  come  before  us,  we  will  be  called 
upon  to  decide  another  and  a  very  different  question.  Richard 
C.  Anderson  and  John  Sergeant  have  been  regularly  nominated 
by  the  President  of  United  States  to  be  Envoys  Extraordinary 
and  Ministers  Plenipotentiary  "  to  the  Assembly  of  American 
nations  at  Panama."  The  Senate,  after  long  and  solemn  deliber- 
ation, have  advised  and  consented  to  their  appointment.  These 
Ministers  have  been  created — they  have  been  called  into  existence 
under  the  authority  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
That  venerated  instrument  declares,  that  the  President  "  shall 
have  power,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate, 
to  make  treaties,  provided  two-thirds  of  the  Senators  present 
concur:  and  he  shall  nominate,  and,  by  and  with  the  advice  and 
consent  of  the  Senate,  shall  appoint  Ambassadors,  other  public 
Ministers  and  Consuls,  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  all 
other  officers  of  the  United  States,  whose  appointments  are  not 
herein  otherwise  provided  for?  and  which  shall  be  established 
by  Law."  What,  then,  will  be  the  question  upon  the  appropria- 
tion bill?  In  order  to  enable  our  Ministers  to  proceed  upon  their 
mission,  the  President  has  asked  us  to  grant  the  necessary  appro- 
priation. Shall  we  incur  the  responsibility  of  refusing?  Shall 
we  thus  defeat  the  mission  which  has  already  been  established  by 
the  only  competent  constitutional  authorities?  This  House  has, 
without  doubt,  the  physical  power  to  refuse  the  appropriation, 
and  it  possesses  the  same  power  to  withhold  his  salary  from  the 
President  of  the  United  States.  The  true  question  is,  what  is 
the  nature  of  our  constitutional  obligation  ?  Are  we  not  morally 
bound  to  pay  the  salaries  given  by  existing  laws  to  every  officer 
of  the  Government?  By  the  act  of  the  first  May,  1810,  the 
outfit  and  salary  to  be  allowed  by  the  President  to  Foreign  Min- 
isters are  established.  Such  Ministers  have  been  regularly  ap- 
pointed to  attend  the  Congress  at  Panama.  What  right  then 
have  we  to  refuse  to  appropriate  the  salaries  which  they  have  a 
right  to  receive,  under  the  existing  laws  of  the  land? 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  187 

I  admit  there  may  be  extreme  cases,  in  which  this  House 
would  be  justified  in  withholding  such  an  appropriation.  "  The 
safety  of  the  people  is  the  supreme  law."  If,  therefore,  we 
should  believe  any  mission  to  be  dangerous,  either  to  the  exist- 
ence or  to  the  liberties  of  this  country,  necessity  would  justify 
us  in  breaking  the  letter  to  preserve  the  spirit  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. The  same  necessity  would  equally  justify  us  in  refusing 
to  grant  to  the  President  his  salary,  in  certain  extreme  cases, 
which  might  easily  be  imagined. 

But  how  far  would  your  utmost  power  extend?  Can  you 
re-judge  the  determination  of  the  President  and  Senate,  and 
destroy  the  officers  which  they  have  created?  Might  not  the 
President  immediately  send  these  Ministers  to  Panama;  and,  if 
he  did,  would  not  their  acts  be  valid?  It  is  certain,  if  they 
should  go,  they  run  the  risk  of  never  receiving  a  salary;  but 
still  they  might  act  as  Plenipotentiaries.  By  withholding  the 
salary  of  the  President,  you  cannot  withhold  from  him  the  power ; 
neither  can  you,  by  refusing  to  appropriate  for  this  mission, 
deprive  the  Ministers  of  their  authority.  It  is  beyond  your 
control  to  make  them  cease  to  be  Ministers. 

The  constitutional  obligation  to  provide  for  a  Minister,  is 
equally  strong  as  that  to  carry  into  effect  a  treaty.  It  is  true, 
the  evils  which  may  flow  from  your  refusal  may  be  greater  in 
the  one  case  than  the  other.  If  you  refuse  to  appropriate  for  a 
treaty,  you  violate  the  faith  of  the  country  to  a  foreign  nation. 
You  do  no  more,  however,  than  omit  to  provide  for  the  execu- 
tion of  an  instrument  which  is  declared  by  the  Constitution  to  be 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land.  In  the  case  which  will  be  pre- 
sented to  you  by  the  appropriation  bill,  is  the  nature  of  your 
obligation  different  ?  I  think  not.  The  power  to  create  the  Min- 
ister is  contained  in  the  same  clause  of  the  Constitution  with  that 
to  make  the  treaty.  They  are  powers  of  the  same  nature.  The 
one  is  absolutely  necessary  to  carry  the  other  into  effect.  You 
cannot  negotiate  treaties  without  Ministers.  They  are  the  means 
by  which  the  treaty-making  power  is  brought  into  action.  You 
are,  therefore,  under  the  same  moral  obligation  to  appropriate 
money  to  discharge  the  salary  of  a  Minister,  that  you  would  be 
to  carry  a  treaty  into  effect. 

If  you  ask  me  for  authority  to  establish  these  principles, 
I  can  refer  you  to  the  opinion  of  the  first  President  of  the 
United  States — the  immortal  Father  of  his  Country — who,  in 
my  humble  judgment,  possessed  more  practical  wisdom,  more 


188  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

political  foresight,  and  more  useful  constitutional  knowledge, 
than  all  his  successors. 

I  have  thus,  I  think,  established  the  position,  that  gentle- 
men who  vote  for  the  amendments  now  before  the  committee, 
even  if  they  should  not  prevail,  may,  without  inconsistency,  give 
their  support  to  the  appropriation  bill. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  the  discussion  of  the  proposed  amend- 
ments; and,  I  must  confess,  I  do  not  much  admire  their  phrase- 
ology. I  am  far  from  thinking  them  the  most  happy  specimen 
of  the  style  of  my  friend  from  Delaware,  (Mr.  McLane.)  They 
would  be  better,  if  they  were  much  shorter;  but,  for  every  sub- 
stantial purpose,  they  meet  my  most  cordial  approbation.  What 
are  the  two  principles  which  they  contain?  They  declare,  as 
the  opinion  of  this  House,  that  the  Ministers  which  we  shall 
send  to  Panama,  ought  not  to  receive  authority  to  enter  into 
any  alliance,  offensive  or  defensive,  with  the  Southern  Republics, 
or  even  to  negotiate  upon  the  subject;  neither  ought  they  to  be 
instructed  to  pledge  this  Government  to  maintain,  by  force,  the 
principle,  that  no  part  of  the  American  continent  shall  hence- 
forward be  subject  to  colonization  by  any  European  Power. 
Their  foundation  rests  upon  the  long  and  the  well-settled  maxim 
of  the  policy  of  this  country — that  we  should  avoid  entangling 
alliances  with  all  nations. 

What  objections  have  been  urged  against  these  amend- 
ments? The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Webster)  has 
contended  that,  if  they  should  prevail,  they  will  violate  the  con- 
stitutional power  of  the  Executive,  and  will  virtually  amount  to 
instructions  from  this  House  to  our  Ministers.  I  am  at  a  loss 
to  conceive  how  he  will  support  this  position.  If  the  President 
had  simply  demanded  from  us  an  appropriation  to  carry  the 
mission  into  effect,  and  such  amendments  had  been  offered  to  the 
bill,  the  objection  would  have  been  conclusive. 

The  true  state  of  the  question  before  the  committee  will,  of 
itself,  obviate  this  difficulty.  The  President  has  sent  two  messages 
to  this  House;  in  the  one,  he  asks  for  our  opinion  concern- 
ing the  expediency  of  the  mission,  and,  in  the  other,  for  an 
appropriation  to  carry  it  into  effect.  The  first  message  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations,  who  have  reported 
in  favor  of  the  expediency  of  the  measure;  and  the  second  to 
the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  who  have  reported  an  appro- 
priation bill.  It  is  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Rela- 
tions which  is  now  before  this  committee.     The  President  should 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  189 

have  been  content  with  the  appropriation  alone.  He  and  his 
friends  ought  not  to  have  desired  to  obtain  the  opinion  of  this 
House,  and  thus  to  shelter  themselves  from  the  responsibility 
under  our  authority.  They,  however,  have  thought  differently. 
The  President,  in  his  message,  has  detailed  the  objects  of  the 
mission;  and  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations  have  submit- 
ted to  us  an  elaborate  report  approving  of  the  whole  of  them, 
in  the  strongest  and  most  general  terms.  Are  this  House  obliged 
either  to  applaud  or  condemn  the  whole?  Have  they  not  the 
power  to  exercise  their  discretion?  Must  they  declare  either 
that  all  the  objects  of  the  mission  are  proper,  or  that  they  are  all 
improper?  If  we  have  a  discretion,  which  I  think  cannot  be 
denied,  we  have  the  power  to  discriminate.  We  have  the  power 
of  approving  a  part  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign 
Relations,  and  condemning  the  remainder.  These  amendments 
proceed  no  further.  The  resolution  before  the  committee,  when 
amended  and  adopted,  will  be  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  simple 
opinion  of  this  House,  upon  a  subject  which  has  been  regularly 
brought  before  it  for  determination.  By  what  logic  the  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Webster)  will  be  able  to  prove 
that  such  a  resolution  will  be  an  instruction  from  this  House  to 
our  Minister,  I  am  utterly  unable  to  comprehend. 

This  House  has  always  exercised  the  power  of  expressing 
its  opinion  upon  great  political  questions,  whether  of  a  foreign 
or  domestic  nature,  by  means  of  resolutions.  Until  this  debate 
commenced,  nobody  ever  thought  that  such  a  course  was  an 
improper  interference  with  the  prerogatives  of  the  Executive. 
A  new  era  must  have  commenced,  or  such  a  doctrine  would  not 
be  supported. 

If  these  amendments  should  prevail,  the  mission  will  still  go 
to  Panama  free  and  unrestricted.  The  President,  in  framing 
his  instructions,  will  give  to  the  opinion  of  this  House  so  much 
weight,  as,  in  his  judgment,  it  deserves.  He  will  be  at  liberty  to 
disregard  it  altogether,  if  he  thinks  proper.  This  alleged  attempt 
upon  the  part  of  the  friends  of  the  amendment,  to  instruct  our 
Ministers,  has  not  the  least  foundation  in  fact. 

I  now  come  to  a  question  of  great  importance  in  this  dis- 
cussion. Does  the  information  before  the  House  justify  the 
proposed  amendments,  and  render  them  necessary?  or,  are  they 
mere  abstract  propositions,  in  no  manner  connected  with  the 
subject?  I  have  never  been  more  mistaken  if  I  shall  not  be 
able  to  demonstrate,  that,  from  the  uniform  course  of  policy 


190  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

which  has  been  pursued  by  the  present  Administration,  they  are 
already  committed  to  such  an  extent  that  it  will  be  exceedingly 
difficult  for  them  to  retrace  their  steps  and  extricate  themselves 
without  giving  just  cause  of  offence  to  the  Southern  Republics. 
In  my  opinion,  a  crisis  has  now  arrived,  in  which  it  is  the  duty 
of  this  House  to  take  a  firm  stand  in  favor  of  the  ancient  and 
the  approved  policy  of  the  country.  We  should  proclaim  to  the 
world,  that  it  is  our  determination  "  to  preserve  peace,  com- 
merce, and  friendship,  with  all  nations,  and  to  form  entangling 
alliances  with  none." 

It  will  here  be  necessary  to  take  a  short  historical  view  of 
our  relations  with  the  Southern  Republics.  Within  the  last  few 
years,  we  have  seen  in  this  Hemisphere,  seven  new  Republics 
emerging  from  the  chaos  of  Spanish  Colonial  despotism.  The 
whole  American  People  beheld  this  cheering  spectacle  with  heart- 
felt satisfaction.  We  watched  their  progress  with  the  most  in- 
tense anxiety,  and,  marching  in  the  van  of  nations,  we  first 
declared  them  to  be  free,  sovereign,  and  independent.  This 
declaration  now  is,  and  will  forever  continue  to  be,  one  of  the 
most  glorious  events  in  our  annals.  It  was  made  on  the  fourth 
of  May,  1822,  and  all  hailed  it  with  pride,  and  with  pleasure. 
In  the  Summer  of  1823,  the  Holy  Alliance,  at  the  request  of 
Spain,  were  called  upon  to  assist  in  subjugating,  what  she  was 
pleased  to  call  her  revolted  colonies.  The  most  serious  appre- 
hensions were  then  entertained,  that  an  unholy  crusade  was  to 
be  proclaimed  against  the  cause  of  liberty  and  Republican  Gov- 
ernment, wherever  they  existed  over  the  whole  earth.  In  this 
alarming  posture  of  affairs,  did  we  give  any  pledge  to  foreign 
nations?  Did  we  commit  the  faith  of  the  country  to  all,  or  any 
of  the  Southern  Republics?  Certainly  not.  We  maintained  the 
same  independent  position  which  we  had  always  occupied  in  our 
relations  with  foreign  nations.  The  celebrated  message  of  Mr. 
Monroe,  of  December  2d,  1823,  announced  to  the  Holy  Alliance, 
and  to  the  world,  that  we  could  not  view  with  indifference  the 
hostile  interposition  of  any  European  power  against  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  Southern  Republics;  but  would  consider  such 
an  attempt  as  dangerous  to  our  own  peace  and  safety.  This 
declaration  was  re-echoed  by  millions  of  freemen.  It  was 
received  with  enthusiasm  in  every  part  of  the  Union.  It  an- 
swered the  purpose  for  which  it  was  intended,  and  the  danger 
which  then  threatened  the  Southern  Republics  has  since  passed 
away. 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  191 

This  declaration  contained  no  pledge  to  any  foreign  Govern- 
ment. It  left  us  perfectly  free:  but  it  has  since  been  converted 
into  such  pledge  by  the  present  Administration;  and,  although 
they  have  not  framed  formal  alliances  with  the  Southern  Re- 
publics, yet  they  have  committed  the  country  in  honor  to  an 
alarming  extent. 

The  present  Secretary  of  State  has  always  been  an  enthusiast 
in  favor  of  the  Southern  Republics.  He  has  gone  to  such  ex- 
tremities in  their  cause,  that,  in  this  particular,  prudent  men 
would  feel  disposed  to  compliment  his  heart  at  the  expense  of 
his  understanding.  I  have  no  doubt  his  conduct  has  proceeded 
from  the  ardor  of  his  nature  in  the  cause  of  liberty;  and,  there- 
fore, I  shall  be  the  last  man  to  visit  it  with  censure. 

From  the  date  of  the  message  of  Mr.  Monroe,  until  the 
present  Administration  came  into  power,  we  have  never  heard 
that  any  attempt  was  made  to  convert  it  into  a  pledge  to  any 
of  the  Southern  Republics.  No  sooner  had  the  present  Secre- 
tary taken  possession  of  the  chair  of  State,  than  our  policy  was 
changed.  Mr.  Poinsett  was  sent  as  Minister  to  Mexico,  to 
obtain  a  commercial  treaty  from  that  Government.  In  his  in- 
structions, which  bear  date  on  the  25th  of  March,  1825,  and 
which  were  never  communicated  either  to  the  Senate  or  to  this 
House,  until  the  30th  of  March,  he  was  directed  to  impress  the 
principles  of  Mr.  Monroe's  message  upon  the  Government  of  the 
United  Mexican  States.  He  was  also  instructed  to  urge  upon 
that  Government  "  the  utility  and  expediency  of  asserting  the 
same  principles  on  all  proper  occasions."  Was  not  this  a  direct 
departure  from  the  course  which  the  former  Administration  had 
pursued?  Are  not  these  instructions  substantially  to  this  effect? 
We  wish  to  enter  into  a  treaty  of  commerce  with  you:  we  have 
determined  that  no  European  Power  shall  interfere  between  any 
of  the  Southern  Republics  and  Spain,  in  their  war  for  independ- 
ence ;  nor  shall  they  attempt  to  colonize  any  part  of  this  continent : 
we,  therefore,  urge  you  to  act  in  concert  with  us  in  asserting 
the  same  principles.  The  truth  is,  the  Secretary  evidently  con- 
sidered it  as  a  pledge,  and  sent  it  forth  as  such  to  foreign  nations. 
How  was  it  understood  by  Mexico?  During  the  last  Summer, 
it  was  apprehended  by  that  Government  that  France  was  about 
to  invade  the  Island  of  Cuba.  We  were  then  instantly  called 
upon  to  redeem  our  pledge,  and  protect  that  Island  against  the 
fleet  and  army  of  France.  On  this  occasion  did  the  Secretary 
attempt,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  to  deny  the  existence  of 


192  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

such  a  pledge  to  Mexico?  On  the  contrary,  in  his  letter  to  Mr. 
Poinsett,  of  the  9th  of  November  last,  he  expressly  recognises 
our  obligation,  and  leaves  the  Mexican  Government  to  infer 
what  we  would  have  done  had  the  contingency  happened,  from 
a  despatch  which  he  had  sent  to  the  American  Minister  at  Paris. 
This  despatch  contained  an  express  declaration  that  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  could  not  consent  to  the  occupation  of 
the  Islands  of  Cuba  and  Porto  Rico  by  any  other  European 
Power  than  Spain,  under  any  contingency.  Was  not  this  a 
formal  recognition  of  the  pledge,  on  the  part  of  our  Executive? 
But  is  this  all?  No;  very  far  from  it.  It  is  unnecessary  again 
to  repeat  the  strong  language  of  Mr.  Poinsett  to  the  Ministers  of 
Mexico  upon  this  subject,  which  has  been  so  often  repeated  on 
this  floor.  It  is  so  clear  and  conclusive  a  pledge  that,  with 
respect  to  it,  there  can  be  no  mistake  or  misapprehension.  This 
language  was  communicated  to  Mr.  Clay,  in  the  letter  of  the  28th 
of  September.  That  gentleman  when  called  upon  by  this  House 
for  his  answer,  informed  us  that  none  had  been  transmitted.  He 
has  since  discovered  that  he  was  mistaken,  and  has  transmitted 
us  the  answer  to  Mr.  Poinsett's  letter,  which  had  been  accidentally 
overlooked.  Does  this  letter  of  Mr.  Clay  disapprove  the  decla- 
ration of  Mr.  Poinsett  to  the  Mexican  Government?  We  know 
that  it  does  not.  An  implied  assent  is  as  strong  as  an  express 
assent.  Mr.  Poinsett,  from  his  instructions,  and  from  the  whole 
correspondence,  stands  completely  justified  before  his  country  for 
the  declarations  he  has  made.  In  this  manner  our  country,  so 
far  as  it  can  be  committed  by  the  Administration,  has  been 
pledged  to  Mexico  to  pursue  the  course  of  policy  which  I  have 
endeavored  to  delineate. 

How  shall  we  extricate  ourselves  from  these  obligations  to 
Mexico?  Shall  we  say  to  them :  true  it  is,  we  have  attempted  to 
obtain  from  you  the  same  commercial  privileges  which  you  are 
willing  to  grant  to  the  other  Republics  of  this  continent,  by 
declaring  to  you  that  we  form  a  part  of  what  is  called  the  great 
American  system,  and  that  we  are  pledged  to  maintain  your  inde- 
pendence by  war,  if  that  should  become  necessary,  "  and  to  bear 
the  brunt  of  the  contest."  True  it  is  we  know  in  what  manner 
you  understood  our  declarations,  and  we  have  expressly  recog- 
nized your  construction,  by  declaring  our  determination  to  carry 
it  into  effect  against  France,  if  she  should  attempt  to  invade  the 
Island  of  Cuba.  True  it  is,  that  when  the  nature  of  the  pledge 
was  distinctly  brought  home  to  our  Government  by  Mr.  Poinsett, 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  193 

we  never  whispered  a  word  against  its  binding  force.  But  yet 
you  were  entirely  mistaken  in  its  nature.  Mr.  Clay,  whilst  the 
House  of  Representatives  had  the  subject  under  debate,  has 
declared,  that  it  was  a  pledge,  not  to  you,  but  to  ourselves  and  our 
posterity.  You  have,  therefore,  no  interest  whatever  in  this 
pledge,  and  we  can  release  ourselves  from  it  as  soon  as  we  shall 
think  proper. 

I  ask  if  any  man  of  honor,  after  he  had  committed  himself 
to  his  neighbor  in  this  manner,  and  had  thus  attempted  to 
obtain  an  advantage  from  him,  could  afterwards  say,  without 
forfeiting  his  character,  I  merely  pledged  myself  to  myself.  I 
can,  and  will,  redeem  myself  from  my  pledge;  and  you  must 
suffer  the  loss  and  the  disappointment. 

In  my  opinion,  the  friends  of  the  Administration  on  this 
floor  ought  to  be  most  anxious  that  these  amendments  should 
prevail.  They  would  be  the  best  justification  of  the  President 
at  Panama.  He  could  then  say  with  propriety,  that,  whatever 
might  have  been  his  own  inclination  in  relation  to  this  pledge, 
the  House  of  Representatives  had  declared  it  should  never  have 
their  sanction. 

I  think,  sir,  I  have  already  shown,  that  the  documents  upon 
our  table  contain  sufficient  reasons  for  the  adoption  of  these 
amendments.  But  I  shall  not  rest  here.  I  will  proceed  to  an- 
other most  important  branch  of  the  subject.  In  the  first  place, 
however,  it  will  be  necessary  to  present  before  the  committee  a 
view  of  the  precise  character  of  the  Congress  of  Panama.  It  is 
certainly  not  difficult  to  understand  its  nature;  but,  in  my  judg- 
ment, it  has  not  yet  been  correctly  explained.  If  you  would  look 
for  its  true  character,  you  must  examine  the  treaties  to  which  it 
owes  its  existence.  They  form  a  perpetual  alliance,  offensive 
and  defensive,  in  peace  and  in  war,  between  those  Republics  who 
are  parties  to  them.  They  create,  to  use  their  own  language,  "  a 
perpetual  union,  league,  and  confederation."  The  Congress  of 
Panama  will  be  composed  of  Plenipotentiaries  from  all  the  South- 
ern Republics,  "  for  the  purpose  of  establishing,  on  a  more  solid 
basis,  the  intimate  relations  which  should  exist  between  them 
all,  individually  and  collectively,  and  that  it  may  serve  as  a  coun- 
cil in  great  events,  as  a  point  of  union  in  common  danger,  as  a 
faithful  interpreter  of  public  treaties  when  difficulties  may  arise, 
and  as  an  arbitrator  and  conciliator  in  their  disputes  and  differ- 
ences." It  appears,  then,  that  the  first  object  intended  to  be 
accomplished  by  the  Congress  of  Panama  is,  to  establish  a  strict 

13 


194  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

and  intimate  alliance  and  union  between  all  and  each  of  the  seven 
Republics  which  have  freed  themselves  from  the  yoke  of  Spain. 
Should  this  be  accomplished,  to  the  extent  which  they  intend,  I 
shall  look  upon  the  day  of  its  consummation  as  the  darkest  which 
this  country  will  ever  have  beheld.  We  shall  then  be  compelled 
either  to  become  a  member  of  the  Confederacy  or  stand  alone 
upon  this  continent  against  seven  independent  and  powerful  na- 
tions. If,  for  the  preservation  of  the  honor  or  the  interest  of 
the  American  People,  we  shall  be  compelled  to  go  to  war  with  one 
of  these  Republics,  the  whole  continent  of  America,  South  of  our 
own  territory,  will  be  marshalled  in  hostile  array  against  us. 
War  with  one  must  be  war  with  all.  Such  an  alliance  may  not 
be  so  dangerous  to  our  liberties  as  a  league  between  monarchs; 
but,  the  calm  of  despotism,  however  dreadful  it  may  be  to  the 
subjects  of  the  despot,  does  not  present  to  foreign  nations  the 
same  terrors  that  would  be  presented  by  a  confederation  of 
young,  and  vigorous,  and  ambitious  Republics.  I  trust  in  God 
that  the  Ministers  who  may  be  sent  to  Panama  will  be  instructed 
to  use  their  best  exertions  to  break  up  this  Congress.  With 
whatever  favor  it  may  now  be  regarded  by  the  American  People, 
the  time  will  come,  ere  long,  when  it  will  be  looked  upon  as  an 
object  of  jealousy  and  apprehension.  If  this  Congress  should 
accomplish  the  purpose  for  which  it  has  been  conveyed,  our  hope 
must  then  be,  that  it  will  share  the  fate  of  nearly  all  the  con- 
federacies which  have  ever  existed.  Our  Ministers  should  warn 
them  by  the  examples  of  history,  by  the  precepts  of  Washington, 
to  avoid  entangling  alliances  with  each  other.  They  should 
admonish  them  of  the  danger  of  jealousy  and  civil  war.  They 
should  tell  them  that  such  a  league,  instead  of  being  their  pro- 
tection, might  become  their  ruin. 

It  is  clear  to  my  mind,  from  the  documents  in  our  posses- 
sion, that  the  President,  in  balancing  the  difficulties  of  our  situ- 
ation, thought  it  better  this  country  should  incur  the  danger  of 
becoming  eventually  a  party  to  this  alliance,  than  stand  alone. 
He  must  have  foreseen,  and  it  is  evident  he  did  foresee,  that  this 
Government,  whatever  might  be  its  intention  by  sending  Ministers 
to  the  Congress  of  Panama,  would  be  insensibly  drawn  into  the 
Confederation;  that  the  Congress,  from  the  nature  of  the  objects 
to  which  its  attention  will  be  directed,  must  be  perpetual.  After 
the  alliance  shall  have  been  completely  formed,  it  will  remain 
as  the  council  in  great  events,  and  the  point  of  Union  in  com- 
mon danger  for  the  Confederacy.     I  am  free  to  admit,  that,  in 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  195 

my  opinion,  it  will  not  be  an  assembly  of  Sovereign  States,  like 
our  old  Confederation.  Its  powers,  however,  are  more  than 
merely  diplomatic.  It  possesses  judicial  authority  to  fix  the  con- 
struction and  decide  upon  the  true  meaning  of  public  treaties 
between  members  of  the  Confederacy.  It  will  also  be  the  arbi- 
trator in  all  disputes  and  difficulties  which  may  arise.  Whether 
it  will  possess  the  power  of  carrying  its  decrees  into  effect,  I 
cannot  determine,  as  the  treaties  are  silent  upon  that  subject. 
The  President,  when  he  accepted  the  invitation  given  to  this 
country  to  be  represented  by  the  Ministers  in  that  Congress,  knew 
that  their  very  attendance  there  might  produce  a  strong  sympathy 
between  us  and  the  confederates.  That,  whatever  instructions 
might  be  given  in  the  beginning,  we  should,  probably,  in  the  end, 
be  drawn  into  an  alliance.  This  is  a  view  of  the  subject  entirely 
distinct  from  any  question  which  has  arisen,  either  respecting 
our  neutrality  in  the  war  between  Spain  and  her  former  colonies, 
or  our  pledge  to  maintain  their  independence  and  form  of  gov- 
ernment. It  looks  beyond  both.  The  President,  in  his  message 
to  the  House,  has  met  this  question  fairly.  I  shall  quote  his 
own  language.  He  says,  "  among  the  inquiries  which  were 
thought  entitled  to  consideration,  before  the  determination  was 
taken  to  accept  the  invitation,  was  that,  whether  the  measure 
might  not  have  a  tendency  to  change  the  policy,  hitherto  invar- 
iably pursued  by  the  United  States,  of  avoiding  all  entangling 
alliances,  and  all  unnecessary  foreign  connexions." 

Does  the  President  deprecate  this  event,  which  his  sagacity 
had  foreseen?  Does  he  declare  that  this  shall  never  be  our 
policy,  and  that  he  will  take  the  necessary  means  to  prevent  it? 
On  the  contrary,  knowing  that  the  American  People  considered 
an  adherence  to  the  farewell  address  of  the  man  who  was  first 
in  war,  first  in  peace,  and  first  in  the  hearts  of  his  countrymen, 
to  be  the  palladium  of  their  safety,  he  has,  by  a  long  and  ingeni- 
ous argument,  attempted  to  destroy  its  force.  He  has  en- 
deavored to  prove  that  its  principles  did  not  apply  to  the  South- 
ern Republics,  and  that  General  Washington  himself,  under  exist- 
ing circumstances,  would  have  entered  into  close  alliance  with 
them.  And  has  it  come  to  this?  Was  it  not  enough  to  have 
abandoned  the  principles  of  that  immortal  man,  without  attempt- 
ing, by  ingenuity,  to  turn  them  in  direct  opposition  to  their 
plain  and  palpable  meaning?  I  do  not  wish  to  cast  any  reflec- 
tions upon  the  character  of  the  present  President.  I  believe  him 
to  be  a  great  statesman,  and,  perhaps,  as  well  versed  in  the  theory 


196  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

of  diplomacy  as  any  man  now  living.  I  must,  however,  be  per- 
mitted to  say,  that  he  has  attempted  to  explain  away  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  Farewell  Address.  No  man  who  reads  his  message 
can  entertain  a  doubt  on  the  subject.  And,  yet,  his  friends  in 
this  House  say  there  is  no  cause  of  alarm;  there  is  no  necessity 
for  adopting  the  amendments — if  we  did,  they  would  show  a 
want  of  proper  confidence  in  the  Executive.  I  should  have  been 
glad  if  my  friend  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Everett)  had  given 
us  any  explanation  of  this  part  of  his  Message  in  his  Report. 
He  has  not  thought  proper  to  do  so,  but  has  ingeniously  passed  it 
over  without  comment.  Is  it  not,  then,  necessary  to  adopt  these 
amendments,  for  the  purpose  of  declaring  that,  in  our  opinion, 
the  policy  of  Washington  should  still  prevail? 

There  is  still  another  forcible  reason  which  may  be  urged  in 
favor  of  these  amendments.  Upon  this  part  of  the  subject  I 
shall  be  brief,  as  it  has  been  fully  discussed  by  others.  When 
the  Ministers  of  Mexico  and  Colombia  invited  us  to  send  Repre- 
sentatives to  the  Congress  of  Panama,  they  explicitly  stated  the 
subjects  in  the  discussion  of  which  it  was  expected  our  Ministers 
would  take  part.  We  were  distinctly  told  that  "  one  of  the  sub- 
jects which  will  occupy  the  attention  of  the  Congress  will  be  the 
resistance  or  opposition  to  the  interference  of  any  neutral  nation 
in  the  question  and  war  of  independence  between  the  new  Powers 
of  the  Continent  and  Spain,"  and  the  other,  "  the  opposition  to 
colonization  in  America  by  the  European  Powers."  These  were 
to  be  "  the  two  principal  subjects,"  and  our  Government  was 
informed  that  it  was  expected  their  Ministers  should  be  fur- 
nished with  "  express  instructions  in  their  credentials "  upon 
these  two  principal  questions.  It  is  true,  that  both  the  Ministers 
from  Mexico  and  Colombia  declared  they  did  not  wish  this 
Government  to  compromit  its  neutrality  by  taking  part  in  those 
discussions  which  related  to  the  war  then  in  existence  between 
them  and  Spain.  In  discussing  this  part  of  the  case,  the  gentle- 
man from  Louisiana  (Mr.  Brent)  has  fallen  into  a  great  mis- 
take. He  has  exclaimed — has  not  the  President  declared  that 
our  neutral  relations  shall  not  be  affected?  True,  he  has,  and, 
therefore,  on  that  subject,  I  feel  no  apprehension.  But  can  any 
person  pretend  that  it  would  compromit  our  neutrality  to  enter 
into  an  eventual  alliance  with  these  Republics,  not  to  take  effect 
unless  some  other  European  Power  should  interfere  against  their 
independence?  It  is  clear,  if  we  do  not  engage  in  the  existing 
contest  we  would  not  violate  our  neutrality  by  becoming  parties 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  197 

to  such  a  treaty.  This  distinction  is  expressly  taken  by  the 
Ministers  of  Mexico  and  Colombia  themselves.  Has  the  Presi- 
dent any  where  declared  that  he  will  take  no  measures  for  the 
purpose  of  making  such  an  eventual  alliance  as  I  have  men- 
tioned ?  In  his  message  to  the  Senate,  he  has  stated  that  "  It  will 
be  seen  that  the  United  States  neither  intend,  nor  are  expected, 
to  take  part  in  any  deliberations  of  a  belligerent  character;  that 
the  motive  of  their  attendance  is  neither  to  contract  alliances  nor 
to  engage  in  any  undertaking  or  project  importing  hostility  to 
any  other  nation."  This  language  plainly  refers  to  such  an  alli- 
ance as  would  affect  our  neutral  character,  and  to  no  other ;  and 
I  have  looked  in  vain  for  any  part  of  the  message  to  the  House, 
from  which  a  different  inference  could  be  deduced. 

In  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  by  which  the  invita- 
tion was  accepted,  "  whilst  he  declares  that  our  Ministers  will 
not  be  authorized  to  enter  upon  any  deliberations,  or  to  concur  in 
any  acts  inconsistent  with  the  present  neutral  position  of  the 
United  States,  and  its  obligations,  they  will  be  fully  empowered 
and  instructed  upon  all  questions  likely  to  arise  in  the  Congress 
on  subjects  in  which  the  nations  of  America  have  a  common 
interest."  The  acceptance  of  the  invitation  is  in  the  most  gen- 
eral terms.  Our  Ministers  (says  the  Secretary)  will  be  author- 
ized to  discuss,  and  will  be  instructed  upon,  every  question,  except 
those  which  may  affect  our  present  neutrality.  Are  the  com- 
mittee, then,  prepared  to  say  that  our  Ministers  to  Panama  shall 
enter  into  negotiations  concerning  such  an  eventual  alliance  as 
the  Ministers  from  Mexico  and  Colombia  have  suggested?  If 
they  are  not,  they  will  adopt  the  amendments  proposed. 

We  are  still  told  we  should  have  confidence  in  the  Executive, 
and  it  would  show  a  want  of  sufficient  confidence  in  that  branch 
of  the  Government,  to  adopt  the  amendments.  On  this  subject 
I  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  (Mr.  Rives)  that  this 
is  no  case  for  confidence.  What,  sir,  confidence  against  the 
record  and  the  documents  before  you?  When  they  speak  one 
language,  are  you  to  believe  they  intend  another  ? 

But  there  are  other  circumstances  connected  with  this  ques- 
tion, which  have  deprived  me  of  any  ground  for  confidence,  in 
relation  to  this  particular  subject.  The  invitation  to  attend  the 
Congress  of  Panama  was  accepted  by  the  Executive  but  six  days 
before  the  meeting  of  Congress.  I  put  it  to  every  gentleman 
who  now  hears  me,  what  ought  to  have  been  their  conduct? 
Ought  not  the  President  to  have  waited  for  the  meeting  of  the 


198  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

Senate,  and  taken  the  opinion  of  his  constitutional  advisers? 
It  is  admitted  by  all  to  have  been  a  decision  of  great  novelty, 
and  of  vast  importance;  why,  then,  did  he  choose  at  once  to 
rush  into  the  arms  of  our  new  allies,  rather  than  wait  the  brief 
space  of  six  days?  His  immediate  predecessor  did  not  pursue 
such  a  course.  He  had  established  a  memorable  precedent,  which 
should  have  been  followed  on  this  occasion.  When  he  thought 
the  time  had  arrived  to  recognise  the  independence  of  the  South- 
ern Republics,  he  first  asked  an  appropriation,  to  enable  him  to 
send  Ministers  to  them;  and  thus  he  obtained  the  fair  and  un- 
biased opinion  of  Congress.  Why  was  not  this  salutary  example 
followed?  What  does  the  precipitancy  of  the  present  Adminis- 
tration argue?  What  might  an  enemy  infer  from  their  conduct? 
Might  he  not  say  that,  believing  it  to  be  a  subject  which  would 
arouse  the  best  feelings  of  the  American  People,  they  wished  to 
appropriate  to  themselves  all  the  popularity  and  glory  of  the  mis- 
sion ;  that  they  could  thus  commit  the  country  to  such  an  extent, 
that  the  Senate  would  not  dare  to  resist  their  application?  If  such 
were  their  intention,  they  have  been  mistaken.  True  it  is,  they 
have  so  far  committed  the  country,  and  excited  the  expectation  of 
the  new  Republics,  that  it  would  now  be  much  more  impolitic 
for  us  not  to  go  to  the  Congress  of  Panama  than  to  go;  yet  the 
Senate  have  so  restrained  the  ardor  of  the  Executive  as  to  deprive 
the  mission  of  much  of  its  danger. 

When  I  look  to  that  venerable  body,  I  cannot  sufficiently 
admire  the  wisdom  of  our  ancestors,  in  placing  them  as  a  check 
upon  the  conduct  of  the  Executive.  I  most  sincerely  believe,  if 
this  mission  had  gone  to  Panama,  with  the  powers  at  first  con- 
templated, the  country  would,  ere  this,  have  been  dangerously 
committed  to  the  Southern  Republics.  The  Senate  are  entitled 
to  the  praise  of  having  taken  the  sting  from  it,  and  having  ren- 
dered it  comparatively  harmless. 

The  President,  in  his  message  to  the  Senate,  has  declared 
that  he  deemed  it  to  be  within  the  constitutional  competence  of 
the  Executive  to  send  Ministers  to  Panama.  He  applied  to  the 
Senate,  not  because  he  thought  their  sanction  necessary,  not  be- 
cause he  believed  he  could  not  act  without  it,  but  because  he 
wished  to  evince  a  proper  degree  of  deference  for  their  opinion. 

This,  it  appears  to  me,  is  an  assumption  of  power  on  the  part 
of  the  Executive,  unknown  to  the  Constitution.  That  instrument 
•makes  it  his  duty  "to  give  Congress,  from  time  to  time,  infor- 
mation of  the  state  of  the  Union."     From  this  duty  results  his 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  199 

power  of  sending  agents  abroad,  merely  for  the  purpose  of  obtain- 
ing information.  This  power  has  been  often  exercised.  But,  by 
what  authority  the  President  could  claim  the  right  of  sending 
Plenipotentiaries  to  Panama,  without  the  consent  of  the  Senate, 
I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to  determine. 

There  is  another  reason,  which  has  shaken  my  confidence  in 
the  Executive,  so  far  as  respects  this  mission.  The  Senate  were 
anxious  to  discuss  this  measure  with  open  doors.  They,  there- 
fore, requested  the  President  to  inform  them,  whether  the  publi- 
cation of  the  documents  necessary  to  be  referred  to  in  debate, 
would  be  prejudicial  to  existing  negotiations.  He,  however, 
fixed  the  seal  of  confidence  upon  the  proceedings,  and  held  them 
bound  to  secrecy  fast  as  the  grasp  of  death.  But  no  sooner 
had  the  Senate  decided  the  question,  than  he  himself  published 
to  the  world  these  very  documents,  and  accompanied  them  by 
a  message,  which  is,  in  fact,  but  an  answer  to  the  report  of  the 
Committee  of  Foreign  Relations  to  the  Senate.  The  reply  is 
thus  made  to  precede  the  argument.  And  thus  it  was  expected 
first  to  seize  upon  the  feelings  of  the  People  of  the  United  States, 
and  get  them  committed  against  the  Senate.  It  is  not  for  me  to 
say  this  conduct  was  wrong;  but  I  know,  if  I  were  a  Senator, 
I  should  feel  it  most  sensibly.  In  this  reply,  whenever  the  argu- 
ment of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations  was  unanswerable, 
the  President  changed  his  ground,  and  presented  the  matter  to 
the  House  in  an  aspect  entirely  different.  I  shall  present  an 
example  before  the  committee,  to  illustrate  this  position. 

The  President,  in  his  message  to  the  Senate,  distinctly 
stated,  that  one  object  which  he  had  in  view  in  accepting  the 
invitation,  was  to  influence  the  Southern  nations  to  change  their 
political  constitutions  in  regard  to  their  established  religion,  and 
to  introduce  universal  toleration.  From  the  state  of  public  opin- 
ion in  those  countries,  an  attempt  of  this  nature  would  spread 
one  universal  flame  over  the  whole  Southern  continent.  With 
whatever  justice  the  enemies  of  the  Catholic  religion  may  say  it 
has  been  a  scourge  to  liberty  in  other  countries,  it  has  certainly 
been  a  blessing  to  the  Southern  Republics.  Its  ministry,  so  far 
from  having  set  themselves  in  array  against  the  principles  of 
liberty,  took  a  leading  and  an  efficient  part  in  accomplishing  the 
revolution.  This  assertion  is  true,  in  its  utmost  extent,  in  rela- 
tion to  Mexico.  The  President,  having  discovered  the  danger 
of  such  an  interference,  at  the  present  time,  very  prudently 
changed  his  attitude  in  his  message  to  this  House,  and  now  only 


200  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

intends  to  ask,  at  Panama,  what  I  feel  confident  all  the  nations 
will  grant,  without  the  least  difficulty — the  liberty  to  our  citizens, 
while  they  reside  within  any  of  the  Republics,  of  worshipping 
their  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own  conscience. 

I  come,  now,  to  speak  of  a  subject  deeply  interesting  to  my 
own  constituents,  and  to  the  State  which  I  have  the  honor,  in 
part,  to  represent,  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the  Union.  We  have  often 
been  told,  as  an  argument  against  these  amendments,  that  they 
imply  a  want  of  confidence  in  the  executive.  Judging  from  their 
conduct  in  relation  to  the  Island  of  Cuba,  I  am  justified  in 
declaring,  that  my  confidence  in  them  is  shaken,  in  everything 
which  regards  the  Southern  Republics.  England  and  France 
have  been  warned  by  our  government,  in  the  most  solemn  and 
formal  manner,  that  we  could  not  consent  to  the  occupation  of 
that  island  by  any  other  European  power  than  Spain,  under  any 
contingency  whatever.  Ought  not  the  same  course  to  have  been 
pursued  towards  the  South  American  Republics?  The  reasons 
for  adopting  this  policy,  as  I  shall  presently  show,  are  at  least  as 
strong  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other;  but,  yet,  the  documents 
prove  that  the  Cabinet  had  arrived  at  a  different  conclusion. 
From  them,  it  is  evident,  that  our  government  did  not  intend  to 
interfere  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  an  invasion  of  that  island 
by  Mexico  and  Colombia.  Mr.  Clay,  in  his  letter  of  December 
last,  to  the  ministers  of  these  two  nations,  requested,  only,  that 
their  invasion  of  Cuba  might  be  suspended  until  the  result  of  our 
interference  in  their  favor  with  the  European  powers  should  be 
ascertained.  In  his  letter  to  Mr.  Middleton,  our  minister  at 
St.  Petersburg,  dated  in  May  last,  which  he  read  to  the  Ministers 
of  Mexico  and  Colombia,  he  entered  into  a  long  argument  to 
justify  an  invasion  of  that  island  by  those  Republics,  in  case 
Spain  should  prove  obstinate,  and  not  recognize  their  independ- 
ence. I  will  not  trouble  the  committee  by  reading  this  despatch 
to  them,  as  it  is  in  the  hands  of  every  member. 

The  vast  importance  of  the  Island  of  Cuba  to  the  people  of 
the  United  States,  may  not  be  generally  known.  The  commerce 
of  this  island  is  of  immense  value,  particularly  to  the  agricultural 
and  navigating  interests  of  the  country.  Its  importance  has  been 
rapidly  increasing  for  a  number  of  years.  To  the  middle,  orgrain- 
growing  States,  this  commerce  is  almost  indispensable.  The 
aggregate  value  of  goods,  wares,  merchandise,  the  growth,  prod- 
uce, and  manufacture,  of  the  United  States,  exported  annually 
to  that  island,  now  exceeds  three  millions  and  a  half  of  dollars. 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  201 

Of  this  amount,  more  than  the  one-third  consists  of  two  articles, 
of  pork  and  flour.  The  chief  of  the  other  products  of  domestic 
origin,  are  fish,  fish-oil,  spermaceti-candles,  timber,  beef,  butter 
and  cheese,  rice,  tallow-candles  and  soap.  Our  principal  imports 
from  that  island  are  coffee,  sugar,  and  molasses,  articles  which 
may  almost  be  considered  necessaries  of  life.  The  whole  amount 
of  our  exports  to  it,  foreign  and  domestic,  is  nearly  six  millions, 
and  our  imports  nearly  eight  millions  of  dollars.  The  articles 
which  constitute  the  medium  of  this  commerce,  are  both  bulky 
and  ponderous  and  their  transportation  employs  a  large  portion 
of  our  foreign  tonnage.  More  than  the  one-seventh  of  the  whole 
tonnage,  engaged  in  foreign  trade,  which  entered  the  ports  of 
the  United  States  during  the  year  ending  the  last  day  of  Septem- 
ber, 1824,  came  from  Cuba;  and  but  little  less  than  that  propor- 
tion of  the  tonnage  employed  in  our  export  trade,  sailed  for 
that  Island.  Its  commerce  is,  at  present,  more  valuable  to  the 
United  States,  than  that  of  all  the  Southern  Republics  united. 
How,  then,  can  the  American  People  ever  agree  that  this  island 
shall  be  invaded  by  Colombia  and  Mexico,  and  pass  under  their 
dominion?  Ought  we  not  to  avert  its  impending  fate,  if  pos- 
sible? The  vast  and  fertile  regions  of  Mexico  and  Colombia 
will  produce,  in  abundance,  nearly  all  the  articles  with  which  we 
now  supply  Cuba.  If  it  should  be  revolutionized,  and  become 
an  integral  part  of  either  of  these  Republics,  the  fate  of  this  por- 
tion of  our  trade  would  at  once  be  sealed.  Disguise  the  fact  as 
we  may,  Mexico  is  destined  to  become  our  rival.  She  already 
feels  it  and  knows  it.  She  already  looks  to  war  between  us  and 
the  Southern  Republics.  When  our  Minister  told  her  Plenipo- 
tentiaries that  the  power  she  desired  to  preserve  of  granting  privi- 
leges to  the  Southern  Republics  which  she  wished  to  deny  to  us, 
would  be  useless  to  her,  on  account  of  our  existing  treaties  with 
them,  they  hastily  remarked,  that  war  would  dissolve  all  treaties. 
Shall  we,  then,  stand,  with  our  arms  folded,  and  see  this  island 
pass  into  her  possession?  Shall  we  rest  contented  with  having 
advised  a  simple  suspension  of  its  invasion  merely  with  a  view  to 
the  benefit  of  those  Republics? 

Important  as  this  island  may  be  to  us  in  a  commercial,  it  is 
still  more  important  in  a  political  view.  From  its  position,  it 
commands  the  entrance  of  the  Gulfs,  both  of  Mexico  and  Florida. 
The  report  of  our  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations  truly  says, 
"  that  the  Moro  may  be  regarded  as  a  fortress  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Mississippi."     Any  Power  in  possession  of  this  Island,  even 


202  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

with  a  small  naval  force,  could  hermetically  seal  the  mouth  of 
the  Mississippi.  Thus,  the  vast  agricultural  productions  of  that 
valley,  which  is  drained  by  the  father  of  rivers,  might  be  de- 
prived of  the  channel  which  nature  intended  for  their  passage. 
A  large  portion  of  the  People  of  the  State,  one  of  whose  Repre- 
sentatives I  am,  find  their  way  to  market  by  the  Mississippi.  For 
this  reason  I  feel  particularly  interested  in  this  part  of  the  subject. 
The  great  law  of  self-preservation,  which  is  equally  binding  on 
individuals  and  nations,  commands  us,  if  we  cannot  obtain  pos- 
session of  this  island  ourselves,  not  to  suffer  it  to  pass  from 
Spain,  under  whose  dominion  it  will  be  harmless,  and  yet  our 
government  have  never  even  protested  against  its  invasion  by 
Mexico  and  Colombia. 

There  is  still  another  view  of  the  subject  in  relation  to  this 
island,  which  demands  particular  attention.  Let  us  for  a  moment 
look  at  the  spectacle  which  it  will  probably  present  in  case 
Mexico  and  Colombia  should  attempt  to  revolutionize  it.  Have 
they  not  always  inarched  under  the  standard  of  universal  emanci- 
pation ?  Have  they  not  always  conquered  by  proclaiming  liberty 
to  the  slave?  In  the  present  condition  of  this  island  what  shall 
be  the  probable  consequence  ?  A  servile  war,  which  in  every  age 
has  been  the  most  barbarous  and  destructive,  and  which  spares 
neither  age  nor  sex.  Revenge,  urged  on  by  cruelty  and  ignorance, 
would  desolate  the  land.  The  dreadful  scenes  of  St.  Domingo 
would  again  be  presented  to  our  view,  and  would  again  be  acted 
almost  within  sight  of  our  own  shores.  Cuba  would  be  a  vast 
magazine  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Southern  States,  whose  explosion 
would  be  dangerous  to  their  tranquillity  and  peace. 

Permit  me  here,  for  a  moment,  to  speak  upon  a  subject  to 
which  I  have  never  before  adverted  upon  this  floor,  and  to  which, 
I  trust,  I  may  never  again  have  occasion  to  advert.  I  mean  the 
subject  of  slavery.  I  believe  it  to  be  a  great  political  and  a  great 
moral  evil.  I  thank  God,  my  lot  has  been  cast  in  a  State  where 
it  does  not  exist.  But,  while  I  entertain  these  opinions,  I  know 
it  is  an  evil  at  present  without  a  remedy.  It  has  been  a  curse 
entailed  upon  us  by  that  nation  which  now  makes  it  a  subject  of 
reproach  to  our  institutions.  It  is,  however,  one  of  those  moral 
evils,  from  which  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  escape,  without  the 
introduction  of  evils  infinitely  greater.  There  are  portions  of 
this  Union,  in  which,  if  you  emancipate  your  slaves,  they  will 
become  masters.  There  can  be  no  middle  course.  Is  there  any 
man  in  this  Union  who  could,  for  a  moment,  indulge  in  the  hor- 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  203 

rible  idea  of  abolishing  slavery  by  the  massacre  of  the  high- 
minded,  and  the  chivalrous  race  of  men  in  the  South.  I  trust 
there  is  not  one.  For  my  own  part  I  would,  without  hesitation, 
buckle  on  my  knapsack,  and  march  in  company  with  my  friend 
from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Everett]  in  defence  of  their  cause. 

I  am  willing  to  consider  slavery  as  a  question  entirely  do- 
mestic, and  leave  it  to  those  States  in  which  it  exists.  The  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  shall  be  my  rule  of  conduct  upon 
this  subject.  I  have  good  reason  to  believe,  that  the  honest,  but 
mistaken  attempts  of  philanthropists,  have  done  much  injury  to 
the  slaves  themselves.  These  attempts  generally  reach  the  ears 
of  the  slave,  and  whilst  they  inspire  him  with  false  hopes  of 
liberty,  and  thus  make  him  disobedient,  and  discontented  with  his 
condition,  they  compel  the  master  to  use  more  severity,  than 
would  otherwise  have  been  necessary. 

I  think  I  have  shown  we  are  deeply  interested  in  every 
thing  which  regards  the  fate  of  Cuba.  I  do,  therefore,  most 
sincerely  rejoice,  that  the  President  has  recently  changed  his 
policy  concerning  that  island.  He  has,  at  length,  come  forward 
like  a  statesman,  and  with  true  magnanimity  has  corrected  those 
errors  into  which  he  had  previously  fallen.  In  his  late  message 
to  the  House,  we  hear  no  more  of  requesting  Colombia  and 
Mexico  to  suspend  their  invasion,  till  the  pleasure  of  Spain  can 
be  known;  but  he  has  told  us  distinctly,  that,  at  the  Congress 
of  Panama,  "  all  our  efforts  in  reference  to  this  interest  will  be 
to  preserve  the  existing  state  of  things,  the  tranquillity  of  the 
islands,  and  the  peace  and  security  of  their  inhabitants."  This 
declaration  is  the  strongest  argument  that  could  be  urged,  to  my 
mind,  in  favor  of  the  mission. 

Upon  a  review  of  the  whole  matter,  let  us  inquire  what 
will  be  the  situation  of  our  Ministers  to  Panama,  if  the  amend- 
ments before  the  committee  should  not  be  adopted,  and  they  shall 
pursue  that  course  which  the  friends  of  the  Administration  assure 
us  they  will  be  instructed  to  pursue.  Let  us  fancy  to  ourselves 
the  spectacle  which  must  there  be  presented.  Let  us  suppose 
the  first  subject  for  the  deliberation  of  the  Congress  to  be  the 
invasion  of  Cuba.  Upon  this  occasion,  the  Representatives  of 
the  Southern  Republics  might,  with  propriety,  address  our  Min- 
isters in  the  following  language:  Your  Cabinet  have  justified 
our  invasion  of  Cuba,  in  a  despatch  which  they  presented  to  the 
Russian  Government  and  communicated  to  us :  they  asked,  that 
the  invasion  might  be  suspended,  until  it  could  be  ascertained 


204  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

whether  Spain  would  acknowledge  our  independence;  we  have 
complied  with  their  request,  and  we  now  know,  from  unquestion- 
able authority,  that  Spain  still  continues  obstinate;  we  wish 
immediately  to  invade  that  island,  and  trust,  if  you  have  not 
determined  to  assist  us  in  the  contest,  that  you  will,  at  least, 
accompany  us  with  your  sympathy  and  good  wishes.  What  will 
be  the  only  answer  which  our  Ministers  can  give  to  such  a  re- 
quest? They  must  say,  we  cannot  deny  the  truth  of  your  asser- 
tions ;  but  the  Cabinet  of  Washington  have  recently  determined  to 
change  their  policy  in  regard  to  this  island.  The  President,  in  a 
late  message  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  has  expressed  his 
determination  that  all  our  efforts  shall  be  exerted  to  preserve  this 
island  under  the  dominion  of  Spain;  and  we  can  never  consent 
that  you  shall  set  a  hostile  foot  upon  it.  Will  not  this  change 
of  policy  at  once  produce  disappointment  and  jealousy  towards 
us,  among  the  Southern  Republics  ?  Ought  not  the  President  to 
desire  a  resolution  of  this  House  to  justify  his  intended  course, 
in  relation  to  this  island,  at  the  Congress  of  Panama? 

Let  us  now  suppose  that  the  next  subject  which  will  occupy 
the  attention  of  the  Congress  may  be  a  concert  or  alliance  between 
us  and  the  Southern  Republics,  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the 
hostile  interference  of  any  European  Power  against  their  inde- 
pendence, and  against  the  colonization  of  any  part  of  this  conti- 
nent. These  were  the  two  principal  subjects  which  they  expected 
our  Ministers  to  discuss  at  Panama.  They  have  so  stated  in 
their  invitation,  and  our  Secretary  of  State  has  accepted  it  in 
the  most  general  terms.  He  has  informed  them  that  our  Min- 
isters should  be  fully  instructed  upon  every  question  likely  to 
arise,  except  such  as  might  interfere  with  our  present  neutrality. 
In  addition  to  this  promise,  our  Minister  to  Mexico  has  declared 
to  them,  that  the  United  States  stood  pledged  to  resist  the  hostile 
interference  of  any  European  nation  against  their  independence, 
by  war,  and,  in  that  event,  we  should  be  compelled  to  bear  the 
brunt  of  the  contest.  When  our  Ministers  shall  be  asked  what 
they  have  to  say  upon  this  subject,  they  will  be  compelled  to 
declare,  that,  touching  it,  they  have  no  authority  to  enter  into 
any  negotiation  or  discussion.  May  not  the  Southern  Republics 
justly  complain,  that  our  Cabinet  has  made  a  promise  to  the  ear 
and  broken  it  to  the  sense?  If  our  Executive  has  determined 
upon  this  course,  as  I  trust  he  has,  would  it  not  be  wise,  and 
politic,  and  proper,  that  he  should  be  sustained  by  the  House 
of  Representatives?     These  amendments  would  be  his  best  apol- 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  205 

ogy  and  best  excuse  for  disappointing  the  just  expectations  of 
the  Southern  Republics. 

On  the  subject  of  preventing  colonization  in  America,  I  have 
a  word  to  say.  Would  it  not  be  a  most  wonderful  stipulation 
for  our  Government  to  make,  for  example,  with  Chili,  that  we 
will  not  permit  our  own  Territory  to  be  invaded  by  a  foreign 
nation?  And  yet,  such  is  the  nature  of  the  engagement  which 
the  President  evidently  had  in  his  view. 

It  would  seem  that  this  mission  is  to  be  still  further  diverted 
from  its  original  purpose.  We  are  told  it  is  to  be  merely  "  con- 
sultative," and  that  our  Ministers  will  possess  no  power,  except 
that  of  receiving  propositions,  and  transmitting  them  to  the 
Cabinet  at  Washington.  If  all  the  allegations  which  have  been 
made  be  true,  they  will  have  nothing  to  consult  about,  except 
the  establishment  of  some  new  principles  of  international  law. 
It  seems  we  are  about  making  an  attempt  to  agree  with  the 
Southern  Republics  that  "  free  ships  shall  make  free  goods,"  and 
that  private  war  upon  the  ocean  shall  be  abolished.  It  is  also  our 
intention  to  fix  the  principles  of  public  law  between  us  relative  to 
blockades. 

As  to  blockades,  I  deny  that  there  is  any  room  for  doubt  in 
the  law  of  nations.  In  relation  to  this  subject,  there  is  no  prin- 
ciple unsettled.  It  is  true,  that  both  England  and  France,  during 
their  late  struggle  for  existence,  violated  this  law.  France  de- 
clared a  blockade  against  the  whole  island  of  Great  Britain,  and 
Great  Britain  retaliated  by  proclaiming  the  whole  coast  of  France 
to  be  in  a  state  of  blockade.  Neutral  commerce  suffered;  but 
both  these  Powers  attempted  to  justify  their  conduct,  not  by  the 
law  of  nations,  but  by  the  principles  of  retaliation  and  self- 
defence. 

In  my  opinion,  we  should  not  agree  to  abolish  private  war 
upon  the  ocean.  War  is,  in  itself,  a  great  calamity :  but,  when 
a  nation  is  obliged  to  engage  in  it  to  defend  her  rights,  it  is  mercy 
to  carry  it  on  with  such  vigor  as  to  conquer  a  speedy  peace. 
If  we  should  ever  be  compelled  to  go  to  war  with  any  one  of 
the  Southern  nations,  all  the  rest  will  be  bound  to  enter  into  the 
contest  against  us.  It  is  only  by  privateering  that  we  shall  be 
able  to  annoy  them  along  all  their  coasts,  both  on  the  Atlantic 
and  Pacific.  From  the  vast  extent  of  their  seaboard,  the  Navy 
of  England  would  not  be  sufficient  to  operate  against  them  in 
every  quarter.  In  the  event  of  war,  the  hardy  sons  of  the  North, 
who  have  been  accustomed  to  the  perils  of  the  sea,  would  rush 


206  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

out  of  their  ports  in  privateers,  and  do  them  infinitely  more  injury 
than  our  whole  Navy. 

If  we  could  abolish  privateering  throughout  the  world,  at 
the  Congress  of  Panama,  humanity  would  plead  loudly  in  its 
favor.  That,  however,  is  impossible.  Whilst  it  will  continue 
to  exist  between  us  and  all  other  nations,  I  am  unwilling  to  de- 
prive this  country  of  its  most  powerful  means  of  annoyance 
against  the  Southern  Republics. 

After  all  the  explanations  which  have  been  made,  if  gentle- 
men are  correct,  the  powers  of  our  Ministers  to  Panama  will  be 
confined  chiefly  to  two  objects.  The  first  to  declare  our  good 
will  towards  the  Southern  Republics,  and  explain  to  them  the 
reasons  why  we  can  do  nothing  for  them ;  and  the  second,  to  get 
early  and  correct  information  of  their  proceedings,  and  com- 
municate it  to  this  Government.  This  last  object  is  one  of  great 
importance.  We  have  good  reason  to  be  jealous  of  this  league. 
Would  the  Senators  and  Consuls  of  Rome  have  suffered  such  a 
Confederacy  to  be  established  at  the  very  gates  of  the  city  ?  We 
should,  if  possible,  dissolve  it  by  peaceable  means. 

We  have  ourselves  grown  great  by  standing  alone,  and  pur- 
suing an  independent  policy.  This  path  has  conducted  us  to 
national  happiness  and  national  glory.  Let  us  never  abandon  it. 
It  is  time  for  us  once  more  to  go  back  to  first  principles,  and 
declare  to  the  world  that  the  policy  of  Washington  has  not  grown 
old.  Union  at  home,  and  independence  of  all  foreign  nations, 
ought  to  be  our  political  maxims.  Let  us  do  good  to  all  nations, 
but  form  entangling  alliances  with  none.  These  are  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  amendments.  Should  they  prevail,  the  Administra- 
tion will  go  to  Panama  with  the  confidence  of  the  country,  and 
with  a  strong  vote.  This  is  certainly  a  matter  of  consequence,  as 
we  should  endeavor  to  present  a  united  front  in  all  our  intercourse 
with  foreign  nations. 


RESOLUTION,  APRIL   18  AND   20,  1826, 

ON  THE   PANAMA  MISSION,  AND  REMARKS  THEREON.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  rose  to  propose  to  his  friends  from 
Delaware  and  Virginia,  [Mr.  McLane  and  Mr.  Rives]  a  modifi- 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  2,  pp.  2368, 
2370,  2374,  2376,  2412-2413.  This  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  99  to 
95.     (Id.  2457.) 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  207 

cation  which  would  embrace  all  the  important  principles  con- 
tained in  both  their  amendments.  He  did  not  suggest  this  modi- 
fication because  he  believed  it  to  be  necessary,  or  because  he  him- 
self had  felt  the  force  of  the  objections  which  had  been  urged 
against  any  of  the  principles  which  these  amendments  contained. 
He  would  cheerfully  vote  for  them  in  their  present  form.  Other 
gentlemen,  however,  thought  it  would  be  best  to  obviate  all  diffi- 
culties, and  to  present  the  subject  in  such  a  manner  before  the 
committee,  that  no  man  could,  for  one  moment,  believe  the 
friends  of  these  amendments  intended  by  them  to  give  instruc- 
tions either  to  the  President  or  his  Ministers ;  or  to  do  more  than 
express  the  constitutional  opinion  of  this  House,  upon  a  subject 
of  immense  importance,  which  had  been  brought,  in  a  regular 
manner,  before  it  for  determination.  The  modification,  if 
adopted,  would  test  the  sincerity  of  those  gentlemen  who  had 
declared,  that  their  only  objection  to  the  amendments  now  before 
the  committee,  was,  that  they  contained  an  instruction  from  this 
House  to  the  Ministers  which  would  be  sent  to  Panama.  Mr. 
Buchanan  then  read  his  modification,  as  follows : 

The  House,  however,  in  expressing  this  opinion,  do  not  intend  to  sanction 
any  departure  from  the  settled  policy  of  this  Government,  that,  in  extend- 
ing our  commercial  relations  with  foreign  nations,  we  should  have  with 
them  as  little  political  connection  as  possible ;  and  that  we  should  preserve 
peace,  commerce,  and  friendship,  with  all  nations,  and  form  entangling  alli- 
ances with  none.  It  is,  therefore,  the  opinion  of  this  House,  that  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  ought  not  to  be  represented  at  the  Congress  of 
Panama,  except  in  a  diplomatic  character,  nor  ought  they  to  form  any  alli- 
ance, offensive  or  defensive,  or  negotiate  respecting  such  an  alliance,  with 
all  or  any  of  the  Spanish  American  Republics ;  nor  ought  they  to  become 
parties  with  them,  or  either  of  them,  to  any  joint  declaration  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preventing  the  interference  of  any  of  the  European  Powers  with 
their  independence  or  form  of  Government,  or  to  any  compact  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preventing  colonization  upon  the  continent  of  America;  but  that  the 
People  of  the  United  States  should  be  left  free  to  act,  in  any  crisis,  in  such  a 
manner  as  their  feelings  of  friendship  towards  these  Republics,  and  as 
their  own  honor  and  policy  may  at  the  time  dictate. 

Mr.    Rives    withdrew   his   amendment,    and    Mr.    McLane 
accepted  Mr.  Buchanan's  resolution  as  a  substitute  for  his  own. 


Mr.  Estill  renewed  the  motion  to  rise,  but  withdrew  it  at  the 
request  of 

Mr.  Buchanan,  who  said,  that  he  rose  again  to  repeat  that 
every  principle  contained  in  the  former  amendment,  is  preserved 


208  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

in  this.  The  very  same  language  is  employed,  with  this  only  dif- 
ference, that,  as  now  modified,  no  gentleman,  however  fond  of 
inference  he  might  be,  could  possibly  infer  from  it  that  this 
House  is  desirous  of  instructing  either  the  President  or  his  Min- 
isters. He  was  not  in  the  least  opposed  to  the  committee's  now 
rising,  though  he  did  not  feel  himself  warranted  in  renewing  a 
motion  to  that  effect. 


Mr.  Buchanan  here  explained,  and  reminded  the  gentlemen 
from  Maine  that  he  had  already  expressed  his  willingness  that 
the  committee  should  rise.  He  had  no  desire  to  hurry  any 
gentleman,  or  take  him  by  surprise. 


Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  thought  it  must  now  appear  evident 
to  all  that  there  was  no  disposition  in  the  friends  of  the  amend- 
ment to  protract  the  debate.  He  thought  that  its  warmest 
enemies  could  not  now  charge  that  upon  them.  He  asked  gentle- 
men if  there  was  any  prospect  that  a  longer  time  would  be  occu- 
pied on  the  amendment,  as  modified,  than  had  already  been  spent 
upon  it.  When  his  colleague  [Mr.  Ingham]  took  his  seat,  no 
gentleman  had  risen  to  follow  him,  and  the  debate  was  then 
considered  as  closed.  The  modification  presented  no  new  prin- 
ciples, but  only  tended  to  remove  objections.  He  hoped,  there- 
fore, that  its  friends  would  oppose  the  motion  to  discharge  the 
Committee,  and  that  the  House  would  be  left  free  to  take  a  vote 
on  the  amendment  in  Committee  to-morrow. 


Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  was  very  glad  that  his  friend  from 
Massachusetts  [Mr.  Everett]  had  proclaimed  to  the  House  and  to 
this  country  that  he  did  not  wish  for  the  introduction  of  the  reso- 
lution, but  that  he  had  been  overruled,  and  that  a  resolution  had 
been  introduced,  contrary  to  his  wishes,  which  expressed  the  expe- 
diency, and  not  the  constitutionality,  of  making  an  appropriation 
for  a  Mission  to  Panama.  The  House  had  long  been  engaged  in 
discussing  the  expediency,  but  not  the  constitutionality  of  the 
measure.  With  the  candor  which  belongs  to  him,  that  gentleman 
now  declares  that  he  wishes  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table,  with 
the  express  purpose  that  the  House  shall  give  no  expression  of  its 
opinion  on  the  expediency  of  the  mission.     If  this  course  shall  be 


1826]  THE  PANAMA  MISSION  209 

taken,  the  declaration  of  the  Committee  will  be  abandoned.  If 
this  was  the  gentleman's  wish,  he  saw  no  reason  why  the  thing 
might  not  take  that  course.  If  a  majority  of  the  House  wished 
to  avoid  any  expression  of  opinion  on  the  expediency  of  the 
mission,  he  saw  no  objection  to  closing  the  debate  this  evening, 
but  he  hoped  there  was  no  such  majority.  For  himself,  he  should 
vote  against  discharging  the  Committee,  and  (should  the  Com- 
mittee be  discharged)  against  laying  the  amendment  on  the  table. 


[April  20.]  Mr.  Buchanan  said,  that,  so  far  as  he  had  power 
over  the  amendment,  it  would  have  afforded  him  sincere  pleasure 
to  accommodate  the  gentleman  from  Vermont  [Mr.  Mallary.] 
That,  however,  was  impossible,  upon  the  present  occasion.  If 
his  proposition  should  prevail,  what  would  then  remain  of  the 
amendment  will  be  comparatively  of  little  value. 

The  gentleman  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Trimble]  did  me  no 
more  than  justice,  when  he  stated  that  my  amendment  had  been 
drawn  with  much  care,  and  every  expression  had  been  deliberately 
considered.  Whilst  I  was  preparing  it,  I  had  the  declaration  of 
Mr.  Monroe  continually  in  view ;  and  was  determined  not  to  intro- 
duce a  single  word  which  might  be  construed,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, to  conflict  either  with  its  letter  or  its  spirit.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  amendment  is  precise,  and  is  strictly  confined  to  the 
expression  of  an  opinion,  that  we  ought  not  to  become  parties  with 
the  Southern  Republics,  to  any  joint  declaration.  It  studiously 
avoids  any  condemnation  of  the  message  of  Mr.  Monroe.  It  does 
not  express  an  opinion,  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
should  not,  under  similar  circumstances,  make  a  similar  declara- 
tion to  the  world.  In  such  an  event,  however,  it  ought  to  be  his 
own  individual  declaration,  upon  his  own  responsibility.  These 
remarks  will,  I  trust,  be  considered  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  first 
part  of  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Maine  [Mr. 
Sprague.  ] 

That  gentleman  asks,  May  not  the  Holy  Alliance  be  upon 
our  borders  in  a  few  months,  and  should  we  then  restrict  the 
Executive?  I  confess  I  consider  such  an  event  very  improbable 
indeed ;  but,  if  it  should  occur,  of  what  utility  could  it  be  to  us  to 
become  parties  to  a  joint  declaration  with  any  nation  on  earth? 
In  such  an  emergency,  this  country  would  take  that  firm  and  inde- 
pendent attitude,  which  becomes  its  character.  It  would  defend 
itself  without  going  abroad  to  seek  for  foreign  connexions. 

14 


210  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

But,  says  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  [Mr.  Sprague]  we 
are  assuming  a  prerogative  over  the  Executive  which  does  not 
become  us.  And  has  it  come  to  this?  Will  the  Representatives 
of  the  People  shrink  from  a  free  declaration  of  their  opinion, 
because  gentlemen  think  such  a  declaration  might  be  construed 
into  a  want  of  confidence  in  the  Executive?  Such  an  argument 
should  never  be  used  on  this  floor.  No  gentleman  has  a  right  to 
infer  such  a  want  of  confidence  from  this  or  any  other  resolution 
which  the  House  may  adopt,  within  its  constitutional  power. 

The  gentleman  from  Maine  admits,  that  this  House  has  a 
right  to  make  an  abstract  declaration  of  the  general  course  of 
policy  which  should  be  pursued  by  this  Government.  An  abstract 
declaration !  Sir,  such  an  one  never  will  be  made.  This  House 
never  will,  never  ought  to,  discuss  and  decide  mere  abstract  propo- 
sitions. If  they  did,  they  would  be  unmindful  of  their  duty. 
Members  were  sent  here  to  transact  the  business  of  the  nation, 
and  they  would  be  without  justification,  if  they  should  spend  their 
time  in  maturing  and  adopting  measures  which  did  not  bear  prac- 
tically upon  the  interests  of  the  People.  Shall  we,  then,  stand 
with  our  arms  folded,  and  declare  that  we  will  not  act  upon  this 
important  subject,  because  it  might  imply  a  want  of  confidence 
in  the  President?  I  trust  not.  I  have  that  degree  of  consti- 
tutional confidence  in  the  present  Executive,  which,  as  a  Repre- 
sentative of  the  People,  I  ought  to  feel.  I  do  not  profess  to  have 
more.  The  President  himself  has  asked  us  for  our  opinion.  We 
now  propose  to  give  it  to  him ;  but,  in  doing  so,  we  disclaim  any 
power  of  instruction.  The  declaration  which  I  trust  we  shall 
make,  is  in  accordance  with  the  established  usage  of  this  House, 
and  will  amount  to  nothing  more  than  an  expression  of  its  opin- 
ion. Thus  far  we  have  an  unquestionable  right  to  proceed.  It 
would  be  quite  as  logical  for  us  to  contend,  that  the  President 
has  no  right  to  express  an  opinion  to  this  House,  upon  a  great 
political  question,  as  it  has  been  in  gentlemen  to  deny  to  us  the 
right  of  expressing  our  opinion  upon  the  present  occasion. 

The  argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Maine  destroys  itself. 
He  admits  we  may  make  a  general  declaration,  but  we  cannot 
apply  it  to  a  particular  case.  We  may  lay  down  the  premises,  but 
we  cannot  draw  the  conclusion.  We  may  declare  that  we  ought 
not  to  unite  in  a  joint  declaration  with  any  nation  on  earth,  but 
yet  we  cannot  apply  this  declaration  to  the  Southern  Republics. 
I  would  ask  the  gentleman,  if  the  power  of  making  a  general, 
does  not  necessarily  include  that  of  making  a  specific  declara- 
tion of  opinion. 


1826]  REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS  211 

[Mr.  Sprague  here  explained.  He  said  it  was  of  little  im- 
portance to  talk  to  a  deliberative  body  about  its  power.  He 
neither  admitted  nor  denied  the  power  of  the  House  to  make 
such  a  general  declaration.] 

Mr.  B.  said,  from  the  explanation,  he  could  not  hope  to  con- 
vince the  gentleman  from  Maine,  who  seemed  willing  to  repose 
such  implicit  confidence  in  the  Executive,  and  yet  now  professed 
himself  unwilling  to  admit  the  power  of  this  House  to  express 
any  opinion  as  to  the  policy  proper  to  be  pursued  by  this  country. 
That  gentleman  would  act  with  perfect  consistency  in  voting 
against  the  whole  amendment.  But  how  can  gentlemen  give  such 
a  vote  who  admit  both  the  power  of  this  House,  and  the  policy 
of  the  principles  contained  in  the  amendment?  Will  they  aban- 
don the  exercise  of  a  clear  right,  demanded  in  the  present  crisis, 
because  it  seems  to  imply  a  want  of  confidence  in  the  Executive  ? 

Every  attempt  to  change  the  true  character  of  the  amendment 
will  be  vain.  The  question,  and  the  only  question,  to  be  decided 
by  this  House,  is,  Shall  the  policy  of  Washington  continue  to 
prevail,  or,  are  we  now  prepared  to  launch  out  and  adopt  new 
schemes  which  will  naturally  lead  to  entangling  alliances  with 
foreign  nations?  If  we  shall  once  abandon  that  policy,  no  human 
foresight  can  determine  to  what  extent  we  shall  be  drawn.  In 
every  view  which  I  can  take  of  this  subject,  I  hope  the  amend- 
ment, as  modified,  will  be  adopted. 


REMARKS,  APRIL  24,  1826, 

ON  THE  BILL  FOR  THE  RELIEF  OF  REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  spoke  as  follows: 

Mr.  Chairman :  It  is  with  extreme  reluctance  I  rise  at  this 
time  to  address  you.  I  have  made  no  preparation  to  speak,  except 
that  of  carefully  reading  the  documents  which  have  been  laid 
upon  our  tables ;  but  a  crisis  seems  to  have  arrived  in  this  debate, 
when  the  friends  of  the  bill,  if  ever,  must  come  forward  in  its 
support.  I  do  not  consider  that  the  claim  of  the  officers  of  the 
Revolution  rests  upon  gratitude  alone.  It  is  not  an  appeal  to  your 
generosity  only;  but  to  your  justice.  You  owe  them  a  debt,  in 
the  strictest  sense  of  the  word;  and  of  a  nature  so  meritorious, 
that,  if  you  shall  refuse  to  pay  it,  the  nation  will  be  disgraced. 
Formerly,  when  their  claim  was  presented  to  Congress,  we  had, 


Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  1  Sess.  1825-1826,  II.,  part  2,  pp.  2540- 
2543. 


212  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

at  least,  an  apology  for  rejecting  it.  The  country  was  not  then 
in  a  condition  to  discharge  this  debt,  without  inconvenience.  But 
now,  after  forty  years  have  elapsed  since  its  creation,  with  a 
Treasury  overflowing,  and  a  national  debt  so  diminished,  that, 
with  ordinary  economy,  it  must,  in  a  very  few  years,  be  dis- 
charged, these  officers,  the  relics  of  that  band  which  achieved  your 
independence,  again  present  themselves  before  you,  and  again  ask 
you  for  justice.  They  do  not  ask  you  to  be  generous — they  do 
not  ask  you  to  be  grateful — but  they  ask  you  to  pay  the  debt 
which  was  the  price  of  your  independence.  I  term  it  a  debt,  Sir ; 
and  it  is  one  founded  upon  a  most  solemn  contract,  with  which 
these  officers  have  complied,  both  in  its  letter  and  in  its  spirit; 
whilst  you  have  violated  all  its  obligations. 

Let  us  spend  a  few  moments  in  tracing  the  history  of  this 
claim.  It  arose  out  of  the  distresses  of  the  Continental  Army, 
during  the  Revolutionary  war;  and  the  utter  inability  of  the 
Government,  at  that  time,  to  relieve  them.  What,  Sir,  was  the 
situation  of  that  army,  when  it  lay  encamped  at  the  Valley  Forge  ? 
They  were  naked,  and  hungry,  and  barefoot.  Pestilence  and 
Famine  stalked  abroad  throughout  the  camp.  The  first  blaze  of 
patriotism  which  had  animated  the  country,  and  furnished  the 
army  with  its  officers,  had  begun  to  die  away.  These  officers  per- 
ceived that  the  contest  would  be  long,  and  bloody,  and  doubtful. 
They  had  felt,  by  sad  experience,  that  the  depreciated  pay  which 
they  received,  so  far  from  enabling  them  to  impart  assistance  to 
their  wives  and  children,  or  hoard  up  any  thing  for  futurity,  was 
not  sufficient  to  supply  their  own  absolute  and  immediate  wants. 
Placed  in  this  situation,  they  were  daily  sending  in  their  resigna- 
tions, and  abandoning  the  cause  of  their  country.  In  this  alarming 
crisis,  Washington  earnestly  recommended  to  Congress  to  grant 
the  officers  half-pay,  to  commence  after  the  close  of  the  contest, 
as  the  only  remedy  for  these  evils,  within  their  power.  The  coun- 
try was  not  then  able  to  remunerate  the  officers  for  the  immense 
and  unequal  sacrifices  which  they  were  making  in  its  cause.  All 
that  it  could  then  do  was  to  present  them  a  prospect  of  happier 
days  to  come,  on  which  hope  might  rest.  With  this  view,  Con- 
gress, in  May,  1778,  adopted  a  resolution  allowing  the  officers, 
who  should  continue  in  service  until  the  end  of  the  war,  half-pay 
for  seven  years.  This  resolution  produced  but  a  partial  effect 
upon  the  army.  The  time  of  its  continuance  was  to  be  but  short ; 
and  there  were  conditions  annexed  to  it,  which,  in  many  cases, 
would  have  rendered  it  entirely  inoperative. 


1826]  REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS  213 

In  August,  1779,  Congress  again  acted  upon  this  subject, 
and  resolved,  "  That  it  be  recommended  to  the  several  States  to 
grant  half-pay  for  life  to  the  officers  who  should  continue  in  the 
service  to  the  end  of  the  war."  This  recommendation  was  disre- 
garded by  every  State  in  the  Union,  with  one  exception;  and  I 
feel  proud  that  Pennsylvania  was  that  State.  She  not  only 
granted  half-pay  for  life,  to  the  officers  of  her  own  line,  but  she 
furnished  them  with  clothing  and  with  provisions.  Thus,  when 
the  General  Government  became  unable  to  discharge  its  duty  to 
her  officers  and  soldiers,  she  voluntarily  interposed  and  relieved 
their  distresses.  Gen.  Washington,  when  urging  upon  Congress 
the  necessity  of  granting  to  the  officers  half-pay  for  life,  pointed 
to  those  of  the  Pennsylvania  line,  as  an  example  of  the  beneficial 
consequences  which  had  resulted  from  that  measure. 

Congress  at  length  became  convinced  of  the  necessity  of 
granting  to  the  Continental  officers  half-pay  for  life.  Without 
pay  and  without  clothing,  they  had  become  disheartened,  and  were 
about  abandoning  the  service.  The  darkest  period  of  the  Revolu- 
tion had  arrived,  and  there  was  but  one  ray  of  hope  left,  to  pene- 
trate the  impending  gloom  which  hung  over  the  army.  The 
officers  were  willing  still  to  endure  privations  and  sufferings,  if 
they  could  obtain  an  assurance  that  they  would  be  remembered  by 
their  country,  after  it  should  be  blessed  with  peace  and  inde- 
pendence. They  well  knew  Congress  could  not  relieve  their  pres- 
ent wants ;  all,  therefore,  they  asked,  was  the  promise  of  a  future 
provision.  Congress  at  length,  in  October,  1780,  resolved  "  that 
half-pay  for  life  be  granted  to  the  officers  in  the  army  of  the 
United  States,  who  shall  continue  in  service  to  the  end  of  the 
war." 

Before  the  adoption  of  this  resolution,  so  desperate  had  been 
our  condition,  that  even  Washington  apprehended  a  dissolution 
of  the  army,  and  had  begun  to  despair  of  the  success  of  our  cause. 
We  have  his  authority  for  declaring,  that,  immediately  after  its 
adoption,  our  prospects  brightened;  and  it  produced  the  most 
happy  effects.  The  state  of  the  army  was  instantly  changed. 
The  officers  became  satisfied  with  their  condition,  and,  under  their 
command,  the  army  marched  to  victory  and  independence.  They 
faithfully  and  patriotically  performed  every  obligation  imposed 
upon  them  by  the  solemn  contract  into  which  they  had  entered 
with  their  country. 

How,  Sir,  did  you  perform  this  contract  on  your  part  ?  No 
sooner  had  the  dangers  of  war  ceased  to  threaten  our  existence — 


214  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

no  sooner  had  peace  returned  to  bless  our  shores,  than  we  forgot 
those  benefactors,  to  whom,  under  Providence,  we  owed  our  inde- 
pendence. We  then  began  to  discover  that  it  was  contrary  to  the 
genius  of  our  Republican  institutions  to  grant  pensions  for  life. 
The  jealousy  of  the  People  was  roused,  and  their  fears  excited. 
They  dreaded  the  creation  of  a  privileged  order.  I  do  not  mean 
to  censure  them  for  this  feeling  of  ill  directed  jealousy,  because 
jealousy  is  the  natural  guardian  of  liberty. 

In  this  emergence,  how  did  the  Continental  officers  act?  In 
such  a  manner  as  no  other  officers  of  a  victorious  army  had  ever 
acted  before.  For  the  purpose  of  allaying  the  apprehensions  of 
their  fellow-citizens,  and  complying  with  the  wishes  of  Congress, 
they  consented  to  accept  five  years  full  pay,  in  commutation  for 
their  half-pay  for  life.  This  commutation  was  to  be  paid  in 
money,  or  securities  were  to  be  given  on  interest  at  six  per  cent, 
as  Congress  should  find  most  convenient. 

Did  the  Government  ever  perform  this  their  second  stipula- 
tion to  the  officers  ?  I  answer,  no.  The  gentleman  from  Tennes- 
see [Mr.  Mitchell]  was  entirely  mistaken  in  the  history  of  the 
times,  when  he  asserted  that  the  commutation  certificates  of  the 
officers  enabled  them  to  purchase  farms,  or  commence  trade,  upon 
leaving  the  army.  Congress  had  not  any  funds  to  pledge  for 
their  redemption.  They  made  requisitions  upon  the  States,  which 
shared  the  same  fate  with  many  others,  and  were  entirely  disre- 
garded. The  faith  and  the  honor  of  the  country,  whilst  they 
were  intrusted  to  thirteen  independent  and  jealous  State  sov- 
ereignties, were  almost  always  forfeited.  We  then  had  a  General 
Government  which  had  not  the  power  of  enforcing  its  own  edicts. 
The  consequence  was,  that,  when  the  officers  received  their  certif- 
icates, they  were  not  worth  more  than  about  one-fifth  of  their 
nominal  value,  and  they  very  soon  fell  to  one-eighth  of  that 
amount. 

Let  gentlemen  for  a  moment  realise  what  must  then  have  been 
the  situation  and  the  feelings  of  these  officers.  They  had  spent 
their  best  days  in  the  service  of  their  country.  They  had  endured 
hardships  and  privations  without  an  example  in  history.  Desti- 
tute of  every  thing  but  patriotism,  they  had  lived  for  years  upon 
the  mere  promise  of  Congress.  At  the  call  of  their  country,  they 
had  relinquished  half-pay  for  life,  and  accepted  a  new  promise  of 
five  years'  full  pay.  When  they  confidently  expected  to  receive 
this  recompense,  it  vanished  from  their  grasp.  Instead  of  money, 
or  securities  equal  to  money,  which  would  have  enabled  them  to 


1826]  REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS  215 

embark  with  advantage  in  civil  employments,  they  obtained  certifi- 
cates, which  necessity  compelled  most  of  them  to  sell,  at  the  rate 
of  eight  for  one.  The  Government  proved  faithless,  but  they 
had,  what  we  have  not,  the  plea  of  necessity,  to  justify  their  con- 
duct. 

In  1790,  the  provision  which  was  made  by  law  for  the  pay- 
ment of  the  public  debt,  embraced  these  commutation  certificates. 
They  were  funded,  and  the  owner  of  each  of  them  received  three 
certificates ;  the  first,  for  two-thirds  of  the  original  amount,  bear- 
ing an  interest  immediately  of  six  per  cent. ;  the  second  for  the 
remaining  third,  but  without  interest  for  ten  years ;  and  the  third 
for  the  interest  which  had  accumulated,  bearing  an  interest  of  only 
three  per  cent. 

What  does  this  bill  propose?  Not  to  indemnify  the  officers 
of  the  Revolution  for  the  loss  which  they  sustained  in  consequence 
of  the  inability  of  the  Government,  at  the  close  of  the  war,  to 
comply  with  its  solemn  contract.  Not,  after  the  lapse  of  more 
than  forty  years,  to  place  them  in  the  situation  in  which  they  would 
have  been  placed  had  the  Government  been  able  to  do  them 
justice.  It  proposes  to  allow  them  even  less  than  the  difference 
between  what  the  owners  of  the  commutation  certificates  received 
under  the  funding  system,  and  what  these  certificates,  when 
funded,  were  worth  upon  their  face.  My  colleague  [Mr.  Hemp- 
hill] has  clearly  shown,  by  a  fair  calculation,  that  the  allowance 
will  fall  considerably  short  of  this  difference.  If  the  question  now 
before  the  committee  were  to  be  decided  by  the  People  of  the 
United  States,  instead  of  their  Representatives,  could  any  man, 
for  a  moment,  doubt  what  would  be  their  determination? 

I  hope,  said  Mr.  B.  my  friend  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Dwight]  will  not  urge  the  amendment  he  has  proposed.  Judging 
from  past  experience,  I  fear,  if  it  should  prevail,  the  bill  will  be 
defeated.  Let  other  classes  of  persons,  who  think  themselves 
entitled  to  the  bounty  of  their  country,  present  their  claims  to 
this  House,  and  they  will  then  be  fully  and  fairly  investigated. 
The  surviving  officers  of  the  Revolution  have  already  pursued  this 
course.  Their  case  has  been  thoroughly  examined  by  a  commit- 
tee, who  have  reported  in  its  favor ;  and  all  the  information  neces- 
sary to  enable  us  to  decide  correctly,  is  now  in  our  possession.  I 
trust,  therefore,  their  claim  will  be  permitted  to  rest  upon  its  own 
foundation.  They  are  now  old,  and,  for  the  most  part,  in  pov- 
erty ;  it  is  necessary,  therefore,  if  we  act  at  all,  that  we  should  act 
speedily,  and  do  them  justice  without  delay.     In  my  opinion,  they 


216  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

have  a  better  claim  to  receive  what  this  bill  contemplates  giving 
them,  than  any  of  us  have  to  our  eight  dollars  per  day. 

In  this  case,  gentlemen  need  apprehend  no  danger  from  the 
precedent.  We  shall  never  have  another  Revolutionary  war  for 
independence.  We  have  no  reason  to  apprehend  we  shall  ever 
again  be  unable  to  pay  our  just  debts.  Even  if  that  should  again 
be  our  unfortunate  condition,  we  shall  never  have  another  army 
so  patient  and  so  devoted  as  to  sacrifice  every  selfish  consideration 
for  the  glory,  the  happiness,  and  the  independence,  of  their 
country. 

I  shall  vote  against  the  proposed  amendment,  because  I  will 
do  no  act  which  may  have  a  tendency  to  defeat  this  bill. 


TO   GENERAL  JACKSON.1 

Lancaster  21  Sep.  1826. 
Dear  General/ 

Although  I  have  nothing  of  importance  to  communicate,  yet 
I  feel  disposed  occasionally  to  trespass  upon  your  time  &  indulge 
myself  in  the  pleasure  of  writing  to  you. 

We  are  for  once  in  a  political  calm  in  this  State.  Mr.  Shulze 
will  be  re-elected  Governor  without  opposition  &  upon  the  Presi- 
dential question  there  is  not  out  of  the  City  of  Philadelphia  a 
sufficient  division  in  public  sentiment  to  disturb  our  repose.  In 
the  large,  wealthy  &  populous  County  in  which  I  reside  con- 
taining more  than  70,000  people  I  feel  confident  Mr.  Adams  could 
not  poll  500  votes. 

There  was  a  most  artful  &  powerful  effort  made  against 
you  in  this  State  during  the  last  Spring.  They  did  not  dare  to 
attack  you  personally;  but  levelled  all  their  artillery  against  Mr. 
Calhoun,  Mr.  Randolph,  Mr.  M'Duffie  &c.  but  principally 
against  the  former  &  they  endeavored  to  make  you  answerable  for 
his  political  offences  as  presiding  Officer  of  the  Senate.  They 
have  succeeded  to  a  considerable  extent  in  injuring  the  popularity 
of  Mr.  Calhoun;  but  their  arrows  have  fallen  harmless  at  your 
feet.  Your  popularity  throughout  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  is 
fixed  upon  sure  foundations  which  your  enemies  have  not  nor 
ever  will  be  able  to  shake. 


1  Buchanan  Papers,  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania. 


1826]  FROM  DUFF  GREEN  217 

Our  Society  in  this  City  has  had  a  most  agreeable  addition  in 
Mr.  Cheves  &  his  family.  He  has  purchased  a  farm  within  a 
mile  of  Lancaster  &  has  taken  up  his  residence  amongst  us  with 
an  intention  as  he  says  of  laying  his  bones  here.  His  sterling 
good  sense  &  his  agreeable  manners  have  already  made  him  a 
great  favorite.  Although  he  has  been  &  still  I  believe  is  upon 
terms  of  personal  friendship  with  Mr.  Clay  yet  he  disapproves 
highly  of  his  recent  political  course — &  does  not  hesitate  upon  all 
proper  occasions  to  express  his  opinion. 

Our  season  in  this  part  of  the  world  has  been  dry  &  in 
consequence  the  crops  have  not  been  so  abundant  as  usual.  There 
are  many  cases  of  sickness  throughout  our  Country  but  not  many 
deaths.  For  several  years  past  the  Cities  &  large  Towns  in  the 
Eastern  portion  of  this  State  have  been  much  more  healthy  than 
the  Surrounding  Country. 

I  have  spent  a  busy  summer.  The  change  from  law  to  poli- 
tics— &  from  Politicks  to  law — makes  both  pursuits  very  labor- 
ious. A  man  cannot  do  himself  justice  at  either.  Instead  of 
preparing  in  the  summer  for  winter  I  have  often  scarcely  had 
time  to  read  the  common  news  of  the  day.  Nothing  but  a  belief, 
that  it  would  have  been  deserting  my  post  in  the  hour  of  danger, 
could  have  induced  me  again  to  become  a  candidate  for  Congress. 

J.  Buchanan. 


FROM   DUFF   GREEN.1 

Washington  City  12th  Oct.  1826. 
Dear  Sir 

You  will  discover  from  the  Journal  &  Telegraph  that  Mr.  Clay  &  myself 
are  at  issue.  The  part  taken  by  you  on  the  occasion  referred  to,  is  known 
to  me ;  and  a  due  regard  to  your  feelings  has  heretofore  restrained  me  from 
using  your  name  before  the  public.  The  time  however  is  now  approaching 
when  it  will  become  the  duty  of  every  man  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  expose 
the  bargain  which  placed  the  Coalition  in  power.  Will  you,  upon  the  receipt 
of  this,  write  to  me  and  explain  the  causes  which  induced  you  to  see  Genl. 
Jackson  upon  the  subject  of  the  vote  of  Mr.  Clay  &  his  friend  a  few  days 
before  it  was  known  that  they  had  conclusively  determined  to  vote  for  Mr. 
Adams;  also  advise  me  of  the  manner  in  which  you  would  prefer  that  subject 
to  be  brought  before  the  people. 

Yours  sincerely 

D.  Green. 


1  Buchanan  Papers,  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania. 


218  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

FROM   GENERAL  JACKSON.1 

Hermitage,  Oct.  15,  1826. 
My  Dear  Sir: 

I  was  very  much  gratified  on  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  21st  ult, 
which  reached  me  yesterday,  and  thank  you  for  the  information  it  contains. 
I  want  language  to  express  the  gratitude  I  feel  for  the  unsolicited,  but 
generous  support  of  the  great  Republican  State  of  Pennsylvania — did  I  lack 
a  stimulus  to  exert  all  my  faculties  to  promote  the  best  interests  of  my 
country,  this  alone  would  be  sufficient.  Who  could  abandon  the  path  of 
Republican  virtue  when  thus  supported  by  the  voluntary  approbation  of  the 
enlightened  and  virtuous  citizens  of  such  a  State  as  Pennsylvania?  I  answer, 
none  whose  minds  have  been  matured  in  the  schools  of  virtue,  religion  and 
morality. 

I  am  happy  to  learn  that  Mr.  Cheves  has  become  your  neighbor  and  a 
citizen — he  is  a  great  blessing  to  any  society — he  has  a  well-stored  mind  of 
useful  information,  which  he  will  employ  to  the  benefit  of  his  country  and 
the  happiness  of  the  society  to  which  he  belongs.  Please  present  me  to  him 
respectfully. 

I  regret  to  learn  that  the  drought  has  visited  your  section  of  country, 
and  your  crops  are  not  abundant ;  still,  so  long  as  we  have  a  supply  of  bread- 
stuffs  and  other  substantiate,  we  ought  to  be  thankful  and  happy.  When  we 
contrast  our  situation  with  Ireland  and  England,  we  ought  to  view  ourselves 
as  the  chosen  people  of  God,  who  has  given  us  such  a  happy  government  of 
laws  and  placed  us  in  such  a  climate  and  fertile  soil.  We  ought  not  only  to 
be  thankful,  but  we  ought  to  cherish  and  foster  this  heavenly  boon  with 
vestal  vigilance. 

Mrs.  J.  joins  me  in  kind  salutations  and  respects  to  you. 
I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  friend, 

Andrew  Jackson. 


TO   DUFF   GREEN.2 

Lancaster  16th  October  1826. 
Dear  Sir, 

I  confess  I  was  somewhat  surprised  upon  reading  yours  of 
the  1 2th  Instant.  My  time  since  the  adjournment  of  Congress 
has  been  so  much  occupied  by  professional  and  private  business, 
and  I  have  been  so  much  absent  from  home,  that  I  have  bestowed 
but  little  attention  upon  the  Newspapers.     I  have  not  seen  a  single 

1  Curtis's  Buchanan,  I.  48. 

2  Jackson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress.  The  draft  of  this  letter  is  among 
the  Buchanan  Papers  in  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.  An  extract 
from  the  letter  is  printed  in  Niles'  Weekly  Register,  Sept.  8,  1827;  and  in 
Colton's  Life  and  Times  of  Henry  Clay,  I.  358. 


1826]  TO  DUFF  GREEN  219 

number  of  the  National  Journal  since  I  left  Washington,  and 
have  only  read  the  Telegraph  occasionally  when  one  of  my  friends 
who  takes  it,  thought  there  was  any  thing  remarkable  in  it  and 
brought  it  to  me  for  perusal.  I  requested  you  to  have  it  for- 
warded to  me  and  you  mentioned  you  would  send  it  with  a  sub- 
scription paper ;  but  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  has  ever  arrived. 
I  am  therefore  ignorant  of  the  precise  point  on  which  Mr.  Clay 
and  yourself  are  at  issue. 

You  request  me  to  write  to  you  and  explain  the  causes  which 
induced  me  to  see  General  Jackson,  upon  the  subject  of  the  vote 
of  Mr.  Clay  and  his  friends,  a  few  days  before  it  was  known  that 
they  had  conclusively  determined  to  vote  for  Mr.  Adams;  and 
also  advise  you  of  the  manner  in  which  I  would  prefer  that  sub- 
ject to  be  brought  before  the  people.  You  also  allege  that  the 
part  taken  by  me  on  the  occasion  referred  to  is  known  to  you. 

At  this  distance  of  time,  I  could  not  if  I  would,  explain  to 
you  all  the  causes  which  induced  me  to  hold,  the  only  conversation 
which  I  ever  held  with  General  Jackson,  on  the  subject  of  the 
Presidential  election.  It  will  be  sufficient,  however  for  your 
purpose  to  know,  that  I  had  no  authority  from  Mr.  Clay  or  his 
friends  to  propose  any  terms  to  General  Jackson,  in  relation  to 
their  votes,  nor  did  I  make  any  such  proposition.  I  trust  I  would 
be  as  incapable  of  becoming  a  messenger  upon  such  an  occasion, 
as  it  is  known  General  Jackson  would  be  to  receive  such  a 
message. 

I  repeated  the  substance  of  this  conversation  to  a  few  friends 
at  Washington ;  one  of  whom  must  have  communicated  it  to  you. 
That  person  whoever  he  may  be  is  entirely  mistaken  in  supposing, 
the  subject  of  it  to  have  been  what  you  allege  in  your  letter.  I 
must  therefore  protest  against  bringing  that  conversation  before 
the  people,  through  the  medium  of  the  Telegraph  or  any  other 
Newspaper. 

The  facts  are  before  the  world  that  Mr.  Clay  and  his  par- 
ticular friends  made  Mr.  Adams  President ;  and  that  Mr.  Adams 
immediately  thereafter  made  Mr.  Clay  Secretary  of  State.  The 
people  will  draw  their  own  inferences  from  such  conduct  and  from 
the  circumstances  connected  with  it.  They  will  judge  of  the 
cause  from  the  effects.  I  am  clearly  of  opinion  that  whoever  shall 
attempt  to  prove  by  direct  evidence  any  corrupt  bargain  between 
Mr.  C.  and  Mr.  A.  will  fail;  for  if  it  existed,  the  parties  to  it 
will  forever  conceal  it  from  the  light.  Conversations  partly  in 
jest,  and  perhaps  partly  in  earnest  between  members  of  Congress 


220  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1826 

upon  terms  of  intimacy  may  be  exhibited  to  the  public;  but  they 
will  have  no  other  effect,  than  to  injure  the  party  who  may  vio- 
late the  sanctuary  of  private  friendship  and  betray  that  confidence 
without  which  society  could  hardly  exist.  General  Jackson  re- 
quires not  such  aid. 

from  your  friend 

James  Buchanan. 
General  D.  Green. 


REMARKS,  DECEMBER  11,  1826, 

ON  A  PROPOSED  GRANT  OF  LAND  TO  CERTAIN  ASYLUMS 
FOR  THE  DEAF  AND  DUMB.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  thought  it  manifest,  from  the  observations  of 
the  gentleman  from  Vermont,  that  he  had  not  examined  this  bill 
with  his  usual  accuracy.  For  himself,  Mr.  B.  said,  he  would 
never  vote  to  give  a  corporation  land  in  a  Territory,  with  power  to 
hold  it  an  indefinite  length  of  time :  it  would  be  unjust  and  im- 
proper. But  no  such  power  is  granted  by  the  bill.  They  must 
sell  the  land  within  five  years.  They  cannot  lease  it ;  or,  if  they 
do,  their  lessees  will  become  freeholders  in  a  very  short  time. 
The  objection,  therefore,  of  the  gentleman,  did  not  apply.  The 
simple  question  before  the  House  is,  shall  these  benevolent  cor- 
porations be  compelled  to  sell  the  donation  of  their  Government 
immediately,  at  the  very  first  sale  of  public  lands;  or,  shall  they 
be  permitted  to  manage  it  for  themselves,  and  sell,  as  policy  may 
dictate,  at  any  time  within  five  years?  If  the  House  intended  to 
make  a  grant  to  these  schools,  on  the  same  terms  as  they  had 
already  done  to  other  Institutions  of  a  similar  kind,  in  other 
States,  they  would  pass  the  bill  as  it  stands :  but  if  the  lands  are 
to  be  exposed  to  a  compulsory  sale,  the  inevitable  consequence 
would  be,  that  they  must  be  sacrificed.  Every  body  could  tell  what 
was  likely  to  be  the  fate  of  a  tract  of  land,  set  up,  with  a  knowl- 
edge, by  all  parties,  that  it  must  be  sold  within  a  fixed  time,  bring 
what  it  might;  and  this  in  a  distant  Territory,  among  persons 
strangers  to  the  Institutions  concerned,  and  feeling  not  the  least 
concern  or  interest  about  them.  They  would  go  to  speculators, 
and  would  not  bring  more  than  the  minimum  price  allowed  by  law. 
The  bill  does  not  prevent  Florida  from  saying  that  no  land  within 


Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  527. 


1827]  IMPORTATION  OF  BRANDY  221 

that  Territory  shall  be  held  in  mortmain.  These  lands  must  be 
disposed  of  in  five  years ;  but,  if  that  period  is  thought  too  long, 
let  it  be  curtailed ;  but  do  not  compel  your  beneficiaries  to  sacrifice 
the  gift  you  bestow. 


RESOLUTION,  DECEMBER  14,  1826, 

CALLING  FOR  INFORMATION  ON  THE  PANAMA  CONGRESS.1 

In  the  House  of  Representatives,  Thursday,  December  14, 
1826,  Mr.  Buchanan  laid  the  following  resolution  on  the  table  for 
consideration,  to  wit : 

1.  Resolved,  That  the  president  of  the  United  States  be  re- 
quested to  furnish  this  house  any  information  in  his  possession, 
which,  in  his  opinion,  may  be  communicated  without  detriment 
to  the  public  service,  concerning  the  nature  of  the  stipulations 
contained  in  the  treaty  of  league  and  perpetual  friendship,  and  the 
convention  respecting  contingents  and  compact,  which  were  con- 
cluded and  signed  at  Panama,  on  the  1 5th  July  last. 

2.  Resolved,  That  the  president  of  the  United  States  be 
requested  to  communicate  to  this  house  any  information  in  his 
possession,  relative  to  the  organization,  proceedings,  and  adjourn- 
ment of  the  congress  lately  held  at  Panama  which,  in  his  opinion, 
may  be  communicated  without  detriment  to  the  public  interest. 

The  resolution  was  agreed  to  the  next  day. 


1827. 
REMARKS,  JANUARY  3,  1827, 

ON  THE  IMPORTATION  OF  BRANDY  IN  SMALL  CASKS.2 

The  engrossed  bill  to  authorize  the  importation  of  brandy  in 
casks  of  a  capacity  not  less  than  fifteen  gallons,  and  the  exporta- 
tion thereof  with  benefit  of  drawback,  was  read  the  third  time: 
and  the  question  being,  "  Shall  the  bill  pass?  " 

Mr.  Buchanan  rose,  and  said,  the  interests  which  my  con- 
stituents have  in  this  bill,  and  the  relation  in  which  I  stand 
towards  it,  compel  me  to  make  a  few  observations  in  opposition 
to  its  passage. 


1  Niles*  Weekly  Register,  Dec.  23,  1826,  XXI.  263. 

2  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  588-591,  596~597- 


222  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

Mr.  B.  said,  the  gentleman  from  Maryland  [Mr.  Barney] 
has  stated  the  question  truly.  It  is  a  question  between  brandy 
and  whiskey — between  the  commercial  and  the  agricultural  inter- 
ests of  the  country.  Whenever  such  a  question  arises  in  this 
House,  as  a  Representative  more  peculiarly  of  the  agricultural 
interest,  I  always  dread  the  result.  What  is  the  nature  of  this 
bill?  The  laws  at  present  in  existence  authorize  the  importation 
of  foreign  brandy  into  the  United  States  in  casks  of  ninety  gallons 
and  upwards.  They  equally  authorize  its  exportation  in  casks 
of  the  same  description,  to  foreign  countries,  and  allow  a  draw- 
back of  the  duties  in  favor  of  the  exporting  merchant.  Every 
port  in  the  United  States  is  for  this  purpose  a  free  port.  The 
merchants  are  allowed  one  year  for  the  exportation  of  every 
kind  of  foreign  spirits,  with  the  benefit  of  a  drawback  of  the 
duties.  What,  then,  is  the  object  of  this  bill?  Merely  to  allow 
its  importation  and  exportation,  upon  the  same  terms,  in  casks 
of  fifteen  gallons.  What  is  the  difference?  Consider  it  as  you 
will,  it  is  only  the  difference  of  value  in  the  foreign  market,  be- 
tween one  cask  containing  ninety  gallons,  and  six  casks  containing 
each  fifteen  gallons.  This  can  be  the  only  result,  if  the  object  of 
the  bill  be  honest.  The  gentleman  from  Maryland,  [Mr.  Barney,] 
has,  however,  informed  the  House — and  I  believe  his  information 
to  be  correct — that  Mexico  has  excluded  Spanish  brandy,  and 
the  practice  is,  to  carry  the  article  there  without  marks,  and  the 
People  know  it  by  the  taste.  What,  then,  becomes  of  the  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  this  bill?  We  have  been  told,  over  and  over 
again,  that  the  Mexicans  would  not  buy  the  brandy,  unless  it  was 
imported  in  the  original  casks  from  Spain;  and  that  the  casks 
which  contained  it  must  be  small,  that  they  might  be  transported 
over  the  mountains  on  the  backs  of  mules.  We  are  now  informed 
that  the  article  must  be  taken  to  Mexico  without  marks,  so  that 
the  revenue  laws  of  that  sister  Republic  may  be  violated,  and  the 
article  be  illegally  introduced  into  consumption.  Is  this  an  object 
worthy  of  our  legislation?  The  gentleman  says  they  know  the 
article  to  be  genuine  by  the  taste.  Then  might  it  not  as  well,  and 
better,  be  put  into  small  casks  in  Mexico  than  in  Spain?  Are 
you  determined  to  pass  a  law  to  enable  the  merchants  to  evade 
the  revenue  laws  of  Mexico?  Are  you  about  to  force  an  article 
into  that  country  which  they  have  prohibited?  If  this  be  not  the 
object,  what  is  it?  What  can  be  the  reason  of  the  extreme  interest 
felt  in  this  bill  ?  Why  has  the  American  mercantile  world  been  put 
in  motion  to  accomplish  a  purpose  so  trifling?  The  answer  is,  that 


1827]  IMPORTATION  OF  BRANDY  223 

the  merchants  are  a  united  body — they  move  in  a  solid  phalanx — 
they  meet  daily  at  their  coffee-houses  in  our  large  cities — they 
are  represented  by  Chambers  of  Commerce,  and  whenever  they 
act,  they  act  with  concert.  Every  thing  which  regards  them  is 
magnified  into  importance,  and  they  are  successful  in  this  House 
in  almost  every  cause  in  which  they  embark.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  farmers,  upon  whom  this  bill  must  and  will  operate  injur- 
iously, are  scattered  over  an  immense  extent  of  country,  and 
rarely  act  in  concert,  unless  upon  great  occasions.  They  gen- 
erously confide  their  interests  to  their  Representatives  and  to 
Heaven.  The  Representatives  of  the  merchants  upon  this  floor 
are  always  united  and  alive  to  the  commercial  interest.  We  have 
already  heard  upon  this  subject  the  Representatives  of  all  the  large 
commercial  cities  of  the  Union,  except  New  Orleans ;  and,  said  Mr. 
B.  that  gentleman  is  at  this  moment  taking  notes,  and  preparing 
to  speak.  The  real  question  for  our  consideration  then,  is,  Would 
not  the  trifling  advantage  which  this  bill  proposes  in  favor  of  the 
merchants  be  purchased  at  too  high  a  price?  Would  not  the 
injury  to  the  revenue,  and  to  the  agricultural  interest,  far  more 
than  counterbalance  it?  Mr.  B.  said  he  would  make  a  few  re- 
marks on  each  of  these  topics.  Then,  as  to  the  revenue,  when  the 
first  law  was  passed  upon  this  subject,  in  1790,  spirits  were  al- 
lowed to  be  imported  in  casks  of  any  capacity.  Nine  years  experi- 
ence taught  us  the  necessity  of  limiting  the  importation  to  casks 
containing  at  least  ninety  gallons.  Such  is  the  existing  law  of 
1799.  Would  this  alteration  have  ever  been  made,  if  experience 
had  not  proclaimed  its  necessity  ?  Would  a  distinction  have  been 
made  between  brandy  and  wine,  without  reason?  The  truth  is, 
that  the  danger  of  smuggling  wine  is  not  at  all  the  same  as 
that  of  smuggling  brandy.  Those  who  purchase  and  drink  wine 
are  not  generally  such  people  as  would  buy  from  a  smuggler. 
The  smuggling  of  spirits  has  been  a  business  in  every  country. 
The  experience  of  England  proves  that  all  the  guards  which  can 
be  interposed  are  not  sufficient  to  prevent  it.  By  this  bill  you 
throw  wide  open  the  whole  coast  of  the  United  States  to  smug- 
glers, and  invite  them  to  defraud  your  revenue,  by  permitting  the 
importation  of  small  casks  of  fifteen  gallons.  Had  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Wright]  prevailed,  this 
objection  would,  in  a  considerable  degree,  have  been  destroyed. 
One  of  the  most  respectable  merchants  in  the  United  States  has 
informed  me,  that  Spanish  brandy  is  of  a  quality  entirely  unsuited 
for  the  consumption  of  this  country — that  it  is  quite  white,  almost 


224  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

as  strong  as  aqua  fortis,  and  of  a  very  disagreeable  taste.  Had 
permission  been  granted  to  import  brandy  in  small  casks  for  the 
purpose  of  exportation,  and  no  other,  (and  this  was  all  the  mer- 
chants asked,)  none  would  have  been  imported  except  what  was 
intended  for  the  South  American  market.  In  that  case  there 
could  have  been  comparatively  but  little  danger  of  smuggling; 
because  no  person  would  have  used  the  article  after  it  had  been 
smuggled.  This  bill,  as  it  now  stands,  opens  our  whole  sea  coast 
to  the  introduction  of  every  kind  of  spirits  in  small  casks,  as  well 
for  home  consumption  as  for  foreign  exportation. 

In  opposition  to  that  amendment,  it  was  asked  by  the  gentle- 
men from  Delaware  and  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  McLane  and  Mr. 
Webster,]  what  would  become  of  these  small  casks  of  brandy  after 
the  year  within  which  they  might  be  exported  had  expired,  if  they 
were  not  permitted  to  go  into  the  consumption  of  the  country? 
I  answer,  the  merchants  who  placed  them  in  the  warehouses  would 
take  care  to  dispose  of  them  within  the  year.  They  would  either 
export  them  or  sell  them  to  others  who  would.  Neither  is  this  a 
new  thing  in  commerce.  The  warehousing  system  of  Great 
Britain  proceeds  upon  the  same  principle.  They  admit  the  im- 
portation of  our  flour  for  export — but  do  not  suffer  it  to  be  intro- 
duced into  home  consumption.  The  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts referred  to  Great  Britain,  and  the  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Ohio  [Mr.  Wright]  proposed  nothing  but  what  had 
been  sanctioned  by  the  experience  of  that  country. 

What  will  be  the  effect  of  this  bill  on  the  agricultural  inter- 
est? It  will  necessarily  enlist  upon  the  side  of  Spanish  brandy 
all  the  skill  and  enterprise  of  our  merchants  in  the  South  Amer- 
ican markets,  against  our  domestic  article,  whiskey.  What  is  the 
nature  of  the  drawback  system,  as  applied  to  these  articles  ?  We 
have  already  established  public  warehouses,  in  which  every  kind 
of  foreign  spirits  are  deposited  by  the  merchants,  for  the  purpose 
of  transporting  them  to  South  America.  We  have  granted  a 
drawback  of  the  duties  upon  their  exportation.  In  truth,  these 
warehouses  are  magazines,  established  by  ourselves,  in  which  the 
merchants  can  deposit  immense  stores  of  foreign  spirits,  to  be 
sent  abroad  over  the  world,  and  to  go  into  competition  with  our 
own  whiskey.  I  do  not  at  present  propose  to  curtail  this  system, 
though  I  might  do  it  in  this  particular  with  great  reason :  all  I 
ask  is,  that  it  shall  not  be  extended.  The  merchants  ask  for  still 
greater  facilities;  but,  in  my  opinion,  here  we  ought  to  stop  for 
the  present. 


1827]  IMPORTATION  OF  BRANDY  225 

I  have  now  in  my  possession,  said  Mr.  B.  a  letter  from  an 
extensive  refiner  of  domestic  spirits  in  Baltimore,  whose  high 
character  is  well  known  to  the  Representative  from  that  city,  pro- 
testing against  the  passage  of  this  bill.  He  says  that  the  mer- 
chants at  present  export  to  South  America  whiskey  in  small 
casks,  to  suit  those  markets,  and  that  it  is  taking  the  place  of 
Spanish  brandy.  Pass  this  bill,  and  you  at  once  check  that  trade. 
This  is  not  a  contest  in  which  the  distillers  are  chiefly  interested. 
For  several  years  the  price  of  flour  has  been  so  low  as  scarcely  to 
repay  the  labor  of  the  farmer  in  the  cultivation  of  wheat.  The 
corn  and  rye  of  the  Middle  and  Western  States  would  not  pay 
the  price  of  transportation  to  market,  unless  it  assumed  the  form 
of  whiskey.  Moralists  may  regret  that  so  much  of  this  article 
is  used ;  for  one,  I  sincerely  do ;  but  if  any  kind  of  spirits  must  be 
used,  it  is  better  to  encourage  our  own  farmers  than  the  foreign 
producers  of  the  article.  Whiskey  is,  in  every  respect,  a  better 
article  than  the  vile  truck  called  Spanish  brandy ;  and  if  it  be  made 
the  interest  of  our  merchants  to  introduce  its  use  in  foreign 
countries,  it  must  soon  gain  the  preference. 

This  is  no  time  to  cripple  the  farmer.  Our  direct  trade 
with  the  British  colonies  is  destroyed.  We  thus  lose  one  of  our 
best  markets  for  flour.  The  farmer  may  again  be  called  upon  to 
agree  not  to  sell  his  flour  to  British  colonial  purchasers,  unless 
their  Government  will  suffer  it  to  be  carried  in  American  vessels. 
If  the  interest  of  the  country  should  require  this  sacrifice,  the 
farmer  will  again  be  willing  to  make  it,  provided  you  act  upon 
the  principle  of  Washington,  and  first  place  your  adversary  in  the 
wrong.  The  merchants  ought  not,  at  this  time,  to  wish  for  so 
trifling  an  advantage,  when  it  is  calculated  so  essentially  to  injure 
the  grain-growing  States.  If  the  time  should  ever  come  when 
the  mercantile  interest  shall  need  support,  I  shall  be  found  its 
friend.  I  know  the  importance  of  a  commercial  marine;  I  know 
it  is  the  foundation  of  our  Navy ;  and  I  shall  always  be  willing  to 
give  it  a  fair  support,  unless  their  demand  is,  as  I  believe  it  to  be 
upon  the  present  occasion,  unreasonable  and  improper. 

Mr.  B.  said  he  had  discharged  his  duty,  he  feared  without 
effect.  He  apprehended,  from  the  great  and  concentrated  force 
of  the  mercantile  interest  in  this  House,  the  bill  would  pass. 


Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  felt  himself  reluctantly  constrained, 
from  the  number  of  speakers  who  had  replied  to  him,  and  from 
15 


226  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

the  style  of  their  arguments,  again  to  obtrude  himself  upon  the 
House.  If,  said  Mr.  B.  I  were  compelled  to  choose  a  dictator, 
whose  assertion  I  must  take  for  argument,  the  gentleman  from 
Louisiana  [Mr.  Livingston]  might  be  one  of  the  number  in  this 
House  from  whom  I  would  make  a  selection.  He  must,  however, 
permit  me  to  represent  my  own  constituents  according  to  my 
own  judgment.  He  has  stated  in  substance,  that  I  am  entirely 
ignorant  of  the  true  interest  of  the  agriculturists  whom  I  repre- 
sent; and  it  would  be  a  most  important  advantage  to  them  to 
encourage  the  exportation  of  Spanish  brandy  to  South  America. 
We  must  take  this  upon  faith :  for  certainly  he  has  not  attempted 
to  prove  it. 

[Here  Mr.  Livingston  explained  in  a  complimentary  manner 
to  Mr.  B.  and  denied  that  he  intended  any  such  imputation.] 

Has  the  gentleman  from  Louisiana  shown  wherein  I  have 
been  mistaken  ?  No  gentleman  can  shut  his  eyes  against  the  true 
state  of  the  case.  It  is  true  there  has  been  an  endeavor  to  conceal 
it  under  a  mass  of  irrelevant  matter.  We  do  not  intend  to  pro- 
hibit the  exportation  of  brandy  to  South  America.  We  ask  no 
change  in  the  existing  law ;  although  the  competition  against  our 
whiskey  is  already  too  great.  The  question  is,  Shall  we  make  it 
greater?  Shall  we  injure  our  farmers  still  more?  Shall  we 
grant  an  additional  bounty  in  favor  of  foreign  spirits,  by  permit- 
ting the  article  to  be  imported  and  exported  in  smaller  casks  than 
the  law  at  present  allows?  This  change,  whilst  it  will  injure  the 
farmers  much,  cannot  be  of  great  importance  to  the  merchants. 

Gentlemen  have  referred  to  the  policy  and  the  practice  of  the 
British  Government.  Although  in  March,  1825,  Mr.  Huskisson 
recommended  a  reduction  of  the  duties  upon  the  importation  into 
Great  Britain  of  cotton  and  linen  goods  to  such  a  standard  as 
would  make  them  protecting  instead  of  prohibitory,  yet  he  had  too 
much  regard  for  the  domestic  industry  of  his  own  country,  to 
allow  these  foreign  manufactures  any  benefit  of  drawback  upon 
exportation.  He  was  willing  they  should  come  into  competition 
with  domestic  manufactures  in  the  domestic  market;  but  would 
not  send  them  into  competition  in  foreign  markets  with  the  manu- 
factures of  England.  We  have  acted  upon  the  same  principle  in 
regard  to  a  few  articles.  For  the  purpose  of  protecting  our 
fisheries — and  I  admit  that  this  is  an  interest  well  worthy  of 
protection — we  have  denied  the  benefit  of  drawback  to  foreign 
dried  and  pickled  fish  and  fish  oil.  We  have  also  denied  it  to 
salted  provisions.     No  foreign  articles  of  this  description  can  be 


1827]  IMPORTATION  OF  BRANDY  227 

carried  from  the  United  States  into  foreign  markets  to  interfere 
with  domestic  articles  of  the  same  description.  Why  should  not 
this  be  the  case  with  respect  to  foreign  spirits?  But  we  do  not 
ask  it;  we  only  protest  against  extending  the  principle  of  draw- 
back further  than  it  at  present  exists.  It  is  the  policy  of  this 
country,  I  admit,  to  foster  and  protect  its  commerce  by  every 
method  which  shall  not  directly  interfere  with  its  other  great  inter- 
ests. They  should  all  move  on  in  harmony.  Our  navigation 
ought  not  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  either  our 
agriculture  or  manufactures. 

I  have  a  word  to  say  in  reply  to  the  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts, [Mr.  Everett.]  He  has  asserted  that  the  British  are 
obtaining  great  advantages  over  us  in  the  South  American  mar- 
kets. In  this  the  gentleman  must  be  mistaken.  Mr.  B.  said,  he 
had  looked  into  the  documents  as  well  as  the  gentleman  from 
New  York,  [Mr.  Wood.]  They  exhibited  a  very  cheering  view 
in  this  particular.  Our  trade  with  that  portion  of  the  world 
was  rapidly  increasing.  Our  exportation  to  those  regions,  even 
of  manufactured  articles,  had  already  become  very  considerable. 
Our  manufactures  of  cotton,  particularly  those  of  a  coarser  qual- 
ity, were,  throughout  South  America,  preferred  to  British  manu- 
factures. Our  navigation  was  also  rapidly  increasing,  and  the 
trade  was  certainly  prosperous.  Our  exportation  of  whiskey  to 
those  countries  is  already  considerable,  and  has  been  increasing. 
I  fear,  however,  that  this  bill  will  have  a  tendency  greatly  to 
injure  our  trade  in  that  article.  This  bill  will  establish  a  dan- 
gerous precedent.  I  would  not  be  astonished,  if  it  should  pass, 
to  hear  it  argued  upon  this  floor,  that  it  would  be  of  advantage  to 
the  growers  of  hemp  in  this  country  to  allow  the  prayer  of  the 
petition  from  Massachusetts,  and  grant  a  drawback  upon  the  ex- 
portation of  cordage  manufactured  out  of  foreign  hemp;  or  that, 
in  compliance  with  another  request,  from  Rhode  Island,  it  would 
be  greatly  for  the  benefit  of  our  wool-growers  to  reduce  the  duty 
upon  foreign  wool. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  Everett]  has  in- 
formed us  that,  even  if  the  ports  of  Mexico  are  closed  by  law 
against  Spanish  brandy,  yet  still,  in  fact,  it  is  a  common  article  of 
commerce  in  that  country.  If  it  be  so,  it  must  either  be  by  the 
fraud  or  neglect  of  the  custom  house  officers.  The  trade  is  illicit, 
and  we  should  do  no  act  to  render  it  more  extensive.  If  you  do, 
you  combine  with  our  merchants,  and  assist  them  still  more  exten- 
sively to  carry  on  a  trade  prohibited  by  the  policy  of  a  sister 
Republic. 


228  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

REMARKS,  JANUARY  9,  1827, 

ON  THE  APPOINTMENT  OF  CHARGE'S  D'AFFAIRES.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  since  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  had 
consented  to  accept  the  modification  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts,  he  cared  very  little  whether  the  resolution 
passed  or  not.  It  had  become  so  extensive,  that  the  object  of  it 
would  be  defeated.  Mr.  B.  said  he  had  understood  the  gentleman 
from  Tennessee  to  make  a  distinct  charge — if  he  did  not,  Mr.  B. 
wished  him  to  say  so — that  not  only  had  a  Minister  of  the  United 
States  abroad  appointed  a  Charge  des  Affaires  on  his  leaving  the 
station,  (which  appointment  Mr.  B.  admitted  was  necessary  and 
proper,)  but  that  that  Charge,  besides  receiving  the  salary  at- 
tached to  that  office,  during  the  time  he  held  it,  had  received  an 
outfit.  He  knew  not  whether  he  was  correct  in  this  impression ; 
but,  if  he  was  wrong,  he  hoped  the  gentleman  would  correct  him. 
But,  if  the  gentleman  had  received  such  information  as  this,  and 
the  information  was  true,  no  practice  whatever  could  make  it  a 
correct  proceeding.  Previous  practice  might  justify  the  appoint- 
ment of  a  Charge  des  Affaires,  and  the  allowance  of  a  salary  to 
him ;  but  it  could  never  justify  an  expenditure  from  the  contingent 
fund  for  allowing  him  an  outfit,  in  addition  to  the  salary.  This 
distinct  fact  had  been  proposed  to  be  inquired  into;  but,  by  the 
amendment  moved  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  and 
accepted  by  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee,  that  single  point  would 
be  smothered  under  a  mass  of  documents,  which,  if  received  within 
any  reasonable  time,  would  be  entirely  useless.  Mr.  B.  added 
another  remark :  If  the  salary  of  our  Ministers  abroad  was  so  low 
as  to  make  it  necessary  for  them  to  return  to  the  country,  annually, 
to  receive  an  outfit  to  enable  them  to  appear  in  a  manner  becoming 
our  representatives  at  foreign  Governments,  that  salary  ought  to 
be  increased.  If  it  was  not  so,  the  practice  of  changing  our  Min- 
isters abroad  every  year,  could  not  be  justified.  It  was  a  prac- 
tice which  must  be  essentially  injurious  to  the  interests  of  the 
country:  for,  if  a  negotiation  was  opened  abroad,  the  Minister 
often  returned  before  it  was  completed,  leaving  the  matter  unset- 
tled, greatly  to  the  detriment  of  our  interest.  Mr.  B.  concluded 
by  saying,  that  he  had  no  particular  objection  to  the  resolution : 
but  he  suggested  to  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee,  whether, 
clogged  as  it  now  was,  he  had  not  better  abandon  the  resolution 


Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  639,  640. 


1827]  REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS  229 

altogether,  and  on  another  day  bring  in  a  new  resolution,  confined 
to  the  object  which  he  had  specially  in  view. 

Mr.  Everett  said,  that  one  remark  of  the  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  was,  that  the  amendment  which  has  been  adopted 
would  have  the  effect  to  smother  the  object  of  the  mover.  What- 
ever may  be  the  effect  of  it,  [said  Mr.  E.]  such  was  not  my 
design  in  moving  it. 

Mr.  Buchanan  explained.  The  gentleman  from  Massachu- 
setts, he  said,  was  one  of  the  last  gentlemen  in  this  House  to 
whom  he  should  ever  think  of  imputing  an  intention  to  do  any 
thing  unfair. 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  12,  1827, 

ON  THE  BILL  FOR  THE  RELIEF  OF  REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  it  is  not  my  intention  to  make  a  Speech 
upon  the  present  occasion.  I  wish  merely  to  present  some  views 
of  the  subject,  which  will  occupy  the  attention  of  the  House  but 
for  a  few  minutes.  The  friends  of  this  bill  ought  to  know,  and 
ought  to  feel,  that  this  is  the  very  crisis  of  its  fate ;  and  that,  if  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  should  prevail,  all 
is  lost.  The  House  will  then  have  finally  decided  against  the 
claim  of  the  relics  of  the  Revolutionary  army. 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  intention  of  the  mover  of  the 
re-commitment,  its  effect,  its  certain  effect,  will  be,  to  defeat  the 
bill,  if  it  should  prove  successful.  This  motion  has  been  supported 
by  the  most  extraordinary  and  most  inconsistent  arguments. 
Gentlemen  opposed  to  the  bill,  deny  our  right  to  make  any  such 
appropriation  as  it  proposes;  and,  in  the  very  same  breath,  assert, 
that  they  cannot  support  it,  unless  its  provisions  should  be  made 
much  more  extensive,  and  embrace  all  the  militia  who  were  in 
service  during  the  Revolutionary  War. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.  has  it  ever  been  the  practice  of  this  Govern- 
ment to  provide  for  the  militia  ?  Are  they  before  you,  asking  for 
any  such  provision  ?  The  wealth  of  Crassus  would  have  been  as 
that  of  a  beggar — the  riches  of  Plutus  would  have  been  exhausted, 
in  pensioning  all  the  militia  who  served  during  the  war  of  Inde- 
pendence.    I  feel  as  much  gratitude  to  them  for  their  services,  as 


Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  683-686. 


230  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

any  man.  A  recollection  of  their  glorious  achievements  must 
warm  the  breast  of  every  patriot.  They  have  given  renown  to 
their  country ;  but  their  occasional  service  of  a  few  months,  does 
not,  cannot,  place  them  upon  an  equality  with  the  soldiers,  who 
fought,  and  suffered,  and  bled,  for  years,  in  the  sacred  cause  of 
liberty.  The  regular  soldier  was  continually  subject  to  martial 
law — he  was  compelled  to  remain  in  the  service — Summer  and 
Winter — and,  as  the  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island  had  eloquently 
said,  he  had  marked  the  frozen  soil  of  his  country  with  the  blood 
which  flowed  from  his  unshod  feet. 

The  States,  during  the  period  of  the  Revolutionary  war, 
were  each  separate  and  independent.  They  were  bound  together 
by  no  tie  but  that  of  devotion  to  the  cause  in  which  they  were  all 
engaged.  The  militia  were  peculiarly  the  troops  of  the  States — 
not  the  Army  of  the  Continent.  It  had  been  left  to  the  States  to 
provide  for  them,  whilst  this  Government  provided  for  the  sol- 
diers of  the  Continental  Army.  As  a  Pennsylvanian,  said  Mr.  B. 
I  am  proud  to  declare,  that  my  native  State  has  not  only  been  more 
liberal  and  more  just,  than  any  State  in  the  Union,  towards  the 
regular  officers  and  soldiers  of  her  own  line,  upon  the  Continental 
establishment,  but  she  has  also  acted  in  the  same  manner  towards 
her  militia.  She  has  never  refused  to  grant  them  pensions,  if 
they  were  in  want,  and  needed  the  assistance  of  their  country.  As 
one  of  the  Representatives  of  that  State,  I  claim  no  provision  for 
the  militia.  They  have  claimed  none  for  themselves ;  they  never 
would  claim  it  for  the  purpose  of  depriving  the  regular  soldiers 
of  that  pittance  to  which  they  are  entitled  from  the  justice  and 
the  gratitude  of  their  country.  By  such  means,  they  never  would 
desire  the  present  bill  to  be  defeated. 

Among  whom  is  the  sum  of  $1,200,000,  appropriated  by  this 
bill,  to  be  distributed?  There  are  many  surviving  officers  and 
soldiers  of  the  Revolution,  who  are  in  absolute  want,  and  who 
yet  retain  so  much  of  their  ancient  military  pride,  that  they  have 
never  disclosed  their  distress  to  the  Government.  Before  they  can 
obtain  a  pension,  they  must  proclaim  to  the  world  they  are  beg- 
gars. This  is  our  law.  They  must  prove  they  are  in  extreme 
want,  before  they  can  ask  relief ;  and  then  it  is  doled  out  to  them 
as  charity.  The  sum  of  1,200,000  dollars  will  be  distributed 
among  those,  and  those  only,  who  have  never  obtained  pensions. 
What  will  then  be  the  pittance  to  each?  From  the  best  calcula- 
tion, there  are  about  5515  such  persons  now  living,  and  the  aver- 
age portion  of  each  would  amount  to  but  little  more  than  two 
hundred  dollars.    Does  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  really 


1827]  REVOLUTIONARY  OFFICERS  231 

intend  to  engraft  upon  this  sum,  all  the  militia  from  Georgia  to 
Maine,  who  ever  served  in  the  Revolutionary  war  ?  all  those,  who, 
urged  by  a  patriotic  impulse  and  by  impending  danger,  at  any 
time  during  our  long  struggle,  took  the  field,  for  a  few  months,  to 
serve  their  country?  This  provision,  instead  of  two  hundred, 
would  not  be  twenty  dollars,  for  each  man.  I  am  bound  to  be- 
lieve, I  do  believe,  it  is  not  the  intention  of  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina  to  defeat  this  bill  unfairly;  but  every  member 
of  this  House  must  see,  that,  should  the  amendment  prevail,  the 
boon  bestowed  will  not  be  worth  accepting.  Should  it  succeed,  it 
would  afford  no  relief  to  the  objects  of  our  bounty,  unless  millions 
were  added  to  the  appropriation.  Upon  this  vote  depends  the 
fate  of  the  bill :  it  cannot  pass,  if  it  should  be  re-committed  with 
the  proposed  instructions. 

Mr.  B.  said,  I  will  not  enter  into  the  constitutional  objection 
to  this  bill  which  has  been  raised  by  the  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina,  [Mr.  Mitchell.]  I  am  myself  no  very  liberal  expounder 
of  the  Constitution.  But  a  Government  which  holds  the  power 
of  war — whose  duty  it  is  to  defend  the  country  against  foreign 
and  domestic  foes — without  the  power  of  rewarding  its  own 
soldiers,  is  not  a  Government  under  whose  dominion  I  should 
choose  to  live.  Most  assuredly  such  is  not  the  Government  of 
this  country. 

There  is  another  palpable  inconsistency  in  the  arguments  of 
gentlemen.  Whilst  they  deny  that  we  ought  to  make  any  pro- 
vision for  the  surviving  officers  embraced  by  the  first  section  of 
the  bill — and  for  the  widows  of  those  who  have  departed — they 
object  that  the  provision  is  not  sufficiently  extensive,  because  it 
does  not  also  embrace  their  children  and  legal  representatives. 
In  regard  to  these  officers,  I  shall  admit,  for  the  sake  of  the  argu- 
ment, and  for  that  only,  that  we  do  not  owe  them  a  debt,  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  word.  Although  gentlemen  have  affirmed,  that 
they  were  bound  by  the  compromise  into  which  they  entered; 
yet  no  one  has  asserted,  that,  by  that  compromise,  they  received 
all  to  which  they  were  fairly  entitled.  The  terms  were  dictated  by 
the  poverty  of  the  country;  they  were  accepted  by  the  patriot- 
ism of  the  officers.  Is  there  then  no  distinction,  as  the  gentle- 
man from  South  Carolina,  [Mr.  Mitchell,]  has  contended, between 
the  living  officers  and  the  legal  representatives  of  those  who 
are  dead?  He  has  asked,  why  not  provide  for  the  children  of 
the  dead,  in  the  same  manner  that  you  do  for  the  survivors?  I 
shall  answer  this  question.  If  this  claim  be  what  gentlemen  con- 
tend it  is — a  claim  upon  our  gratitude,  and  not  upon  our  justice — 


232  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

the  distinction  is  clear  as  light.  It  is  equally  contrary  to  the  prin- 
ciples and  to  the  practice  of  this  Government,  to  extend  our 
bounty  to  those  who  did  not  render  services — to  make  donations 
to  the  children  for  the  sake  of  their  fathers.  It  would  establish 
a  dangerous  precedent,  and  one  at  war  with  our  republican  insti- 
tutions. But  do  these  children  ask  this  bounty  at  your  hands? 
Are  their  petitions  before  you?  Has  any  child  of  a  Revolu- 
tionary sire — any  man  in  whose  veins  the  blood  of  a  Revolution- 
ary officer  flows — besought  you  for  this  boon?  Is  it,  then,  from 
a  feeling  of  kindness  to  the  children,  that  gentlemen,  without 
solicitation,  would  bestow  the  bounty  of  the  Government  upon 
them?  Or  is  it  not  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  this  bill,  and 
defeating  the  claims  of  the  aged  officers  and  widows  who  are 
now  asking  you  for  relief?  These  children  are  rich  in  the  fame 
of  their  fathers;  they  are  comparatively  young,  and  are  able  to 
make  their  way  through  life.  They  never  have,  and  I  trust  they 
never  will,  interpose  their  claims  to  defeat  those  of  the  surviving 
officers  of  the  Revolution. 

Who  are  before  you  asking  for  relief?  They  are  the  rem- 
nants of  that  band  who  achieved  your  independence.  They  are 
now  suffering  the  evils  both  of  age  and  of  poverty.  They  have 
lived  so  long  as  to  be  forgotten ;  it  would  seem  they  have  become 
pilgrims  and  sojourners  in  the  land.  The  beautiful  and  bountiful 
feast  which  they  have  purchased  for  the  American  People,  with 
their  sufferings  and  with  their  blood,  is  open  to  all  but  to  them. 
The  few  veterans  who  have  survived  their  generation  again  ask — 
what  they  have  hitherto  asked  in  vain — relief  from  their  country. 
This  has  never  hitherto  been  granted ;  nay,  more,  we  have  refused 
to  make  any  direct  decision  upon  their  claims.  Let  us  not  shrink 
from  meeting  the  case  fairly:  let  them  know  their  fate. 

One  word  more,  as  to  General  Hampton  and  the  other  two 
wealthy  officers,  whose  names  have  been  introducd  into  this  de- 
bate. Will  the  House  deny  justice  to  444  individuals,  merely 
because  three  of  them  do  not  need  assistance?  Said  Mr.  B.,  I 
have  this  moment  been  informed  by  a  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina,  [Mr.  Drayton,]  that  Gen.  Hampton  will  not  be  entitled 
to  receive  any  thing  under  this  bill.  He  was  a  State,  and  not  a 
Continental  officer.  So  far,  then,  from  providing  for  him,  he  will 
gain  no  benefit  from  the  bill,  unless  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina  should  prevail,  and  the  militia  be  included ; 
and  in  that  event  a  pittance  may  be  taken  from  some  poor  soldier, 
and  bestowed  upon  this  rich  man.     I  do  not  intend  to  trouble 


1827]  DUTIES  ON  WOOL  233 

the  House  further.  I  shall  conclude  with  a  single  observation. 
The  friends  of  the  bill  cannot  help  seeing  and  knowing,  that,  if  it 
should  be  re-committed,  the  hopes  of  the  Revolutionary  officers 
are  gone,  and  they  may  despair  of  any  future  effort  for  their 
relief,  during  the  present  session. 


REMARKS,   JANUARY    18,   1827, 

ON    THE     DUTIES    ON    WOOL    AND    WOOLLENS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  rose  for  the  purpose  of  making  a 
motion,  the  fate  of  which  would  decide  whether  a  majority  of 
the  House  believed  it  was  possible  to  act  finally,  during  the  pres- 
ent session,  upon  the  bill  making  alterations  in  the  acts  imposing 
duties  on  imports. 

It  is  now  little  more  than  six  weeks  until  the  close  of  the 
session,  and  every  gentleman  can  decide  for  himself,  whether  there 
is  a  prospect,  within  that  period,  of  doing  any  thing  efficient  upon 
the  subject.  It  is  of  importance  that  this  question  should  be 
speedily  decided.  Throughout  the  country,  some  would  enter- 
tain hopes,  and  others  fears,  respecting  the  result,  which  will 
give  birth  to  ruinous  speculations.  The  public  mind  should  be 
quieted,  as  speedily  as  possible,  if  there  be  no  reasonable  hope 
that  the  measure  can  be  finally  decided. 

Mr.  B.  said,  his  opinions  upon  the  subject  of  the  tariff  had 
undergone  no  change.  He  was  as  decidedly  friendly  as  he  ever 
had  been  to  the  policy  of  sustaining  our  domestic  industry,  by 
protecting  duties.  When  the  proper  time  should  arrive,  he  would 
manifest  this  friendship  in  the  proper  manner.  He  concluded  by 
moving  that  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the 
Union  should  be  discharged  from  the  further  consideration  of  the 
bill ;  and,  if  that  motion  should  succeed,  he  avowed  his  intention 
of  moving  to  lay  the  bill  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  Buchanan,  in  reply  to  the  remarks  of  Messrs.  Mallary 
and  Mercer,  said,  I  can  assure  gentlemen,  I  have  no  object  in 
view,  but  to  ascertain  whether  the  House  believe  it  to  be  possible, 
during  the  present  session,  to  mature  and  to  pass  a  bill  for  the 
purpose  of  changing  the  existing  tariff.  Can  any  gentleman  in 
this  House  recollect,  that  a  tariff  bill  ever  passed  during  a  short 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  747-748,  749. 


234  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

session,  when  our  time  is  necessarily  limited  ?  In  my  experience, 
every  such  effort  has  failed.  It  is  a  subject  which,  from  its 
nature,  will  produce,  and  ought  to  produce,  an  extended  debate. 
We  have  now  but  six  weeks  left,  within  which  we  can  act  upon 
this  subject;  there  are  many  other  bills  of  great  importance, 
which,  in  the  mean  time,  must  be  decided.  In  my  opinion,  if  it 
be  not  physically,  it  is  morally  impossible.  The  motion  which 
I  have  made,  will  ascertain  what  are  the  sentiments  of  the  House. 

The  gentleman  from  Vermont,  [Mr.  Mallary,]  has  said, 
that  the  woollen  interest  alone  has  complained,  by  petition,  and 
asked  for  relief.  On  this  subject,  I  will  remark,  as  I  did  some 
weeks  ago,  that  the  agricultural  interest,  rarely,  if  ever,  complain. 
Unlike  the  commercial  and  manufacturing  interests,  they  have 
but  little  opportunity  of  combination.  They  trust  their  cause  to 
their  Representatives.  As  one 'of  their  Representatives,  I  com- 
plain for  them.  The  Navy  of  the  United  States  is  at  this  time 
supplied  with  hemp  from  Russia,  whilst  that  produced  in  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania,  is  without  a  market,  although  when  water- 
rotted,  it  is  equal  to  the  best  Russia  hemp.  Although  I  feel 
friendly  to  the  protection  of  the  woollen  manufacture,  can  I  ever, 
as  a  Representative  of  that  State,  agree  to  protect  this  interest, 
which  chiefly  exists  in  another  portion  of  the  Union,  and  leave 
the  article  of  hemp  unprotected?  The  price  of  grain  has,  for 
several  years,  been  so  low,  as  scarcely  to  afford  the  farmer  who 
raises  it,  a  bare  subsistence.  Shall  it  not  also  be  protected  by  an 
increased  duty  on  the  importation  of  foreign  spirits?  The  truth 
is,  a  new  tariff  always  has  been,  always  must  be,  a  matter  of 
compromise.  The  great  interests  of  the  country  must  proceed 
hand  in  hand.  It  would  be  unjust  to  separate  them.  I  cannot, 
therefore,  at  this  time,  consent  to  any  tariff  which  will  protect 
the  woollen  manufacture,  and  that  alone. 

If  the  House  should  decide  that  they  will  further  consider 
the  subject,  during  the  present  session,  I  shall  prepare  and  offer 
amendments  embracing  these  objects. 

I  have  always  been,  and  believe  I  ever  shall  be,  the  decided 
friend  of  domestic  manufactures.  The  duties,  however,  which 
we  impose,  should  be  protecting  merely,  not  prohibitory.  They 
should  only  enable  the  domestic  manufacturer  to  sustain  a  fair 
competition  in  the  domestic  market.  Such  duties  produce  their 
effect  gradually,  not  suddenly.  The  increase  of  price  is  so  tri- 
fling, as  scarcely  to  be  felt  by  the  consumer.  But,  establish  a  duty 
which  will  at  once  be  prohibitory  on  woollen  manufactures,  on 


1827]  DUTIES  ON  WOOL  235 

articles  essential  to  the  comfort  of  your  farmers,  and  all  other 
classes  of  your  People;  suddenly  increase  their  price  in  such  a 
manner,  as  to  be  severely  felt,  and  to  destroy  a  principal  source 
of  your  revenue ;  and  there  will  be  danger  of  a  re-action  destruc- 
tive to  domestic  manufactures.  The  present  bill,  in  my  opinion, 
goes  too  far.  If  it  should  be  taken  up  for  consideration,  I  shall 
endeavor  to  have  it  amended  in  this,  and  in  other  respects,  and 
if  I  should  be  successful,  it  shall  then  have  my  cordial  support. 
The  discussion  of  it  at  the  present  period  of  the  session,  appears 
to  me  to  be  a  useless  waste  of  precious  time. 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  22,  1827, 

ON    THE     DUTIES    ON    WOOL    AND    WOOLLENS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  I  should  have  waived  the  privilege  which 
is  usually  extended  by  the  courtesy  of  the  House  to  the  mover  of 
a  proposition,  of  closing  the  debate,  if  it  were  not  for  a  single 
circumstance.  I  did  not  hear  the  remark  of  my  friend  from 
Virginia  [Mr.  Mercer]  on  Thursday  last,  which  imputed  igno- 
rance of  his  duty  to  a  former  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
Domestic  Manufactures,  who  was  a  member  of  this  House  from 
the  State  which  I  have,  in  part,  the  honor  to  represent.  For  what 
cause  has  this  charge  been  made  against  that  gentleman?  It  is 
not  because  he  was  ignorant  either  of  our  foreign  or  our  domestic 
trade :  not  because  he  was  unacquainted  with  the  countries  from 
which  foreign  iron  was  imported,  and  its  cost,  both  to  the  foreign 
and  to  the  domestic  manufacturer ;  but  simply  because  he  had  for- 
gotten, or,  perhaps,  never  had  known,  the  name  of  an  obscure 
town  in  Wales,  from  which  that  article  was  imported.  I  must 
confess  I  do  not  remember  the  name  myself.  The  gentlemen 
around  me  now  inform  me  it  is  Cardiff.  The  truth  is,  that 
gentleman  had  enjoyed  singular  good  fortune  during  the  short 
period  which  he  remained  in  Congress;  but  not  better  than  he 
deserved.  To  him,  more  than  to  any  other  individual  in  this 
nation,  are  we  indebted  for  the  tariff  of  1824 — a  tariff  which  has 
been  so  mild  and  so  gradual  in  its  operation,  as  not  to  have  bur- 
dened the  community,  and  yet  so  powerful  as  to  have  generally 
afforded  efficient  protection  to  our  domestic  industry.  It  was  a 
tariff  of  protection,  not  of  prohibition.  That  gentleman  had 
labored  upon  it  incessantly  for  the  whole  of  two  sessions ;  and  yet 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  779-780. 


236  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

we  are  now  called  upon,  during  the  few  remaining  weeks  of  this 
session,  to  mature,  to  pass  a  new  bill  upon  this  subject.  Gentle- 
men, although  they  have  not  directly  charged  me  with  incon- 
sistency, yet  such  a  charge  is  fairly  to  be  implied  from  their 
remarks.  Can  any  person  really  believe  that,  because  I  supported 
protection  in  1824,  I  am  bound  to  advocate  prohibition  in  1827? 
Did  my  course  then,  compel  me  now,  in  order  to  be  consistent,  to 
vote  for  any  crude  and  undigested  measure  which  may  be  pro- 
posed, merely  because  it  is  called  a  tariff?  Certainly  not.  This 
bill,  should  it  become  a  law,  will  effectually  prohibit  the  importa- 
tion of  nearly  all  the  woollen  goods  in  common  use,  whose  value, 
at  the  place  of  exportation,  shall  not  exceed  three  dollars  and 
fifty  cents  per  yard.  It  embraces  peculiarly  within  its  grasp, 
those  articles  worn  by  the  poor  and  middle  classes  of  society. 
Its  provisions  extend  far  beyond  the  request  of  the  woollen  manu- 
facturers. They  have  not  alleged  that  the  duty  of  thirty-three 
and  one-third  per  cent,  was  insufficient  for  their  protection;  but 
they  complain,  and  I  believe  with  justice,  that  British  manufac- 
facturers  and  British  agents  fraudulently  evade  the  payment  of 
this  duty.  What,  then,  is  the  proper  remedy?  A  measure 
which  would  prevent  the  fraud,  and  give  fair  effect  to  the  tariff 
of  1824.  Instead  of  that,  we  are  now  presented  with  a  bill  which 
closes  the  door  altogether  against  foreign  competition.  This 
is  the  application  of  salivation  and  blistering  to  cure  the  headache. 
The  remedy  is  entirely  too  violent  for  the  disease.  If  the  bill  had 
proposed  a  moderate  minimum,  and  had  made  a  small  addition  to 
the  ad  valorem  duty,  it  should  have  received  my  support.  In  its 
present  shape,  however,  I  could  not  vote  for  it,  even  if  it  em- 
braced a  provision  to  impose  additional  duties  on  the  importation 
of  foreign  spirits  and  of  hemp.  Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  I  wish  to  put 
the  question  seriously  to  every  member  within  the  sound  of  my 
voice,  whether  they  believe  it  possible  to  mature  and  to  pass  a 
proper  bill  upon  the  subject  during  the  present  session?  If  the 
House  should  make  the  attempt,  I  feel  positive  that  my  course 
will  be  proved  to  be  correct.  After  wasting  much  precious  time 
in  the  discussion,  and  after  dividing  the  friends  of  domestic  manu- 
factures themselves,  the  bill  will  eventually  be  postponed  until 
the  next  session.  I  am  sorry  that  I  am  compelled  to  make  these 
observations,  but  self-preservation  is  the  first  law  of  nature.  As 
a  Representative  of  Pennsylvania,  as  a  friend  to  the  tariff,  and 
feeling  a  deep  interest  in  its  popularity,  I  can  never  look  on  with 
indifference  at  the  passage  of  a  bill  which  will  at  once  prohibit 


1827]  INDEMNITY  FOR  SLAVES  237 

the  importation  of  foreign  woollens;  much  less  can  I  do  so  when 
that  bill  contains  no  provisions  calculated  to  protect  the  suffering 
domestic  industry  of  my  own  State. 


FROM  GENERAL  JACKSON.1 

Hermitage  Janry  29th  1827. 
Dr  Sir 

Your  favour  of  the  19th  has  been  before  me  for  some  time,  but  observing 
in  the  papers  the  obituary  notice  of  your  brother  whose  illness  took  you  from 
the  city,  I  have  delayed  acknowledging  its  receipt  until  advised  of  your 
return.  I  pray  you  to  accept  my  sincere  condolence  for  the  serious  loss  you 
have  sustained  in  the  death  of  your  brother. 

I  suspect  the  administration  begins  to  perceive  the  necessity  of  public 
confidence,  without  which  it  is  an  arduous  undertaking  to  execute  the  solemn 
duties  confided  by  the  constitution  to  the  chief  magistrate.  The  Panama 
"  bubble "  &  the  loss  of  the  trade  with  the  British  West  Indies  are  the 
result  of  this  defect  in  the  Cabinet,  for  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  such  reputed 
diplomatists  would  have  committed  errors  so  obvious  had  not  some  influence 
stronger  than  the  public  good  operated  upon  their  minds.  My  hope,  however, 
is,  that  the  wisdom  of  Congress  may  remedy  these  blunders,  and  that  my 
friends  the  "  factious  opposition/'  may  in  your  own  language  never  forget 
the  support  due  to  the  country.  I  had  predicted  from  the  movements  of 
Seargeant  and  Rochester  that  the  Panama  subject  was  done  with,  and  that 
the  charge  of  factious  opposition  would  be  hushed,  but  it  appears  I  was 
mistaken.  Tecubaya  is  to  be  the  Theatre  on  which  these  mighty  projects 
are  to  be  unfolded — alas,  what  folly  and  weakness. 

Present  me  to  my  friend  Mr.  Kremer  &  believe  me  very  respectfully 

Yr.  mo.  obdt.  servt. 

Andrew  Jackson. 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  31,  1827, 

ON  A  PROPOSED  RESOLUTION  OF  INQUIRY  AS  TO  A  POSSIBLE  RESIDUUM 
OF  THE  INDEMNITY  FOR  SLAVES  UNLAWFULLY  CARRIED  AWAY.2 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  that  it  was  considered  a  usual  act  of 
courtesy,  in  that  House,  to  pass  every  resolution  whose  object 

1  Buchanan  Papers,  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.  The  letter  is 
imperfectly  printed  in  Curtis's  Buchanan,  I.  49. 

2  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  870-880.  The 
indemnity  above  referred  to  is  that  which  was  paid  by  Great  Britain  under 
the  convention  of  November  13,  1826,  as  compensation  for  slaves  carried 
away  from  the  United  States  by  the  British  forces  in  violation  of  the  treaty 
of  Ghent.  See  Moore's  History  and  Digest  of  International  Arbitrations,  I. 
350,  381. 


238  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

was  a  simple  inquiry.  Yet  he  felt  himself  unable  to  approve  of 
that  now  offered.  The  House  is  already  inundated  with  a  press 
of  business,  which  it  will  scarcely  be  able  to  get  through  with. 
A  resolution  is  now  offered,  which  says,  in  substance,  that  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  shall  now  make  provision  for 
the  distribution  of  a  certain  residuum  of  money  among  a  meri- 
torious class  of  persons,  the  very  existence  of  which  residuum 
cannot  be  ascertained  for  two  years  to  come.  The  bill,  to  which 
the  resolution  refers,  allows  to  the  Commissioners,  who  are  to  be 
appointed  under  it,  two  years,  for  ascertaining  whether  any  such 
residuum  would  be  left,  nor  can  it  be  ascertained  within  less  time ; 
yet  the  gentleman  is  so  very  provident,  that  he  would  set  the 
committee  to  inquiring  about  the  manner  in  which  it  is  to  be  dis- 
tributed so  long  before.  In  his  judgment,  there  was  no  probabil- 
ity that  any  such  balance  would  be  left  at  all.  And  where  was 
the  necessity  of  occupying  the  time  of  one  of  the  committees  of 
this  House  with  an  inquiry  about  it  so  long  beforehand?  If  the 
gentleman  would  direct  his  resolution  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
and  so  modify  it  as  to  call  for  the  acts  or  opinions  of  the  Commis- 
sioners under  the  treaty  of  Ghent,  he  might  readily  become  satis- 
fied, that  there  was  no  such  probability.  The  resolution,  in  its 
present  form,  appeared  to  him  to  be  very  unnecessary;  but,  as  it 
proposed  a  mere  inquiry,  he  should  not  oppose  its  passage. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  6,  1827, 

ON  THE  REFERENCE  OF  MEMORIALS  IN  BEHALF  OF 
A   POLAR  EXPEDITION.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  had  not  risen  for  the  purpose  of 
expressing  any  opinion  with  respect  to  the  truth  or  falsehood  of 
the  speculations  in  these  memorials.  But  the  peculiar  situation 
in  which  he  stood  toward  some  of  the  memorialists,  rendered  it 
proper  for  him  to  say  a  word  on  the  subject.  Some  of  the 
memorials  were  presented  by  men  of  as  great  respectability  in  the 
community,  of  as  cool  heads,  and  as  far  removed  from  any  thing 
like  enthusiasm,  or  credulity,  as  any  that  could  be  found.  They 
recommend  not  an  expedition  to  Symmes'  hole,  (if  there  was 
such  a  place,)  but  an  expedition  of  discovery  in  the  high  latitudes 
of  both  hemispheres.     That  was  the  subject  of  the  prayer  of 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III. 


949. 


1827]  DUTIES  ON  WOOL  239 

these  petitioners — a  subject  entirely  distinct  from  the  peculiarities 
of  any  hypothesis.  He  hoped  it  would  be  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Naval  Affairs — as,  should  any  expedition  be  determined 
on,  that  would  be  the  appropriate  Committee  through  which  the 
report  ought  to  come.  The  Legislature  of  Maryland  was  among 
the  petitioners  on  this  subject.  They  had  unanimously  recom- 
mended the  subject  to  the  attention  of  Congress — other  petitions 
came  from  various  parts  of  the  United  States.  He  thought  it 
was  due  to  the  character  and  standing  of  these  memorialists,  that 
proper  attention  should  be  paid  to  their  application.  For  him- 
self, he  professed  to  have  formed  no  opinion  on  the  subject  of 
Symmes'  Theory.  There  might  be  a  hole  at  the  poles  for  aught 
he  knew;  but  however  that  might  be,  the  expedition  recom- 
mended was  not  for  the  purpose  of  finding  it. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  7,  1827, 

ON    THE    DUTIES    ON  WOOL    AND  WOOLLENS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  did  not  rise  to  prevent  the  question 
from  being  taken  upon  the  bill,  that  night.  But,  said  Mr.  B.  if 
I  could  silently  suffer  it  to  pass,  in  its  present  shape,  I  should 
feel  myself  faithless  to  the  high  trust  which  has  been  reposed  in 
me,  as  one  of  the  Representatives  of  Pennsylvania. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.  if  this  bill  had  been  confined  to  protection 
merely,  I  should  have  voted  for  it,  even  if  I  had  believed  that 
protection  to  be  too  great.  No  slight  difference  of  opinion  should 
have  separated  me  from  the  friends  of  this  bill.  Under  a  system 
of  protection,  the  woollen  manufacture  of  my  own  State,  yet 
in  its  infancy,  would  have  gradually  risen  into  importance.  It 
would  have  taken  deep  root  in  our  soil,  and  its  growth  would 
have  been  firm  and  steady.  The  wool-grower  might  then,  by 
gradually  extending  his  flocks,  have  kept  pace  with  the  manufac- 
turer, and  have  supplied  him  with  the  raw  material.  Agriculture 
and  manufactures  would  thus  have  been  united,  and  would  have 
sustained  each  other. 

But  what  will  be  the  case  under  the  system  now  proposed? 
A  system  of  prohibition  in  favor  of  the  manufacturer;  whilst  it 
leaves  the  wool-grower  with  but  little  additional  protection,  and 
that  little  long  deferred.     Viewing  the  consequences  which  must 


"Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826*1827,  III.  997-1000. 


240  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

necessarily  result  from  this  measure,  and  the  spot  which  gave  it 
birth,  I  believe  it  to  be  a  mere  Boston  and  Salem  bill — a  bill  cal- 
culated to  give  the  woollen  manufacturers  of  a  small  District  in 
New  England,  a  monopoly  of  the  market  of  the  whole  Union. 
If  it  should  become  a  law,  Pennsylvania  will  need  a  tariff  against 
New  England,  as  much  as  the  United  States  now  need  a  tariff 
against  Old  England. 

It  has  been  said  that  40,000,000  dollars  of  capital  have  been 
invested  in  the  woollen  manufacture.  Where?  Is  it  spread  over 
the  regions  of  the  West  ?  or  in  the  Middle  States  ?  Certainly  not. 
But  a  small  portion  of  this  capital,  comparatively  speaking,  exists 
out  of  New  England.  Even  there,  the  greater  part  of  it  is  con- 
fined within  a  narrow  space.  Much  of  the  immense  capital  of 
Boston  and  Salem  has  been  diverted  from  commerce  to  the 
woollen  manufacture.  This  branch  of  business  is  not  there 
conducted  by  individuals,  but  large  masses  of  wealth  are  con- 
centrated, and  applied  to  that  purpose,  by  incorporated  companies. 
In  this  state  of  the  manufacture,  prohibit,  at  once,  the  importa- 
tion of  foreign  woollens,  and  what  is  the  inevitable  consequence  ? 
In  the  East,  they  are  already  in  possession  of  the  capital.  They 
already  have  large  incorporated  companies  in  successful  opera- 
tion. They  can,  at  once,  extend  their  machinery,  to  meet  the 
increased  demand  arising  from  prohibition;  and,  in  this  manner, 
they  can,  and  they  will  swallow  up  the  woollen  manufactures 
throughout  the  rest  of  the  Union.  We  are  not  yet  prepared  to 
contend  against  them.  Our  woollen  manufacturers  cannot  sus- 
tain such  a  competition.  The  skill  and  the  capital  of  individuals 
in  the  Middle  States,  if  this  bill  should  become  a  law,  must,  and 
will  be  overwhelmed  by  the  superior  skill  and  superior  capital 
of  the  Eastern  manufacturing  companies.  Are  you  prepared  to 
establish  an  Eastern  monopoly?  I  trust  the  House  will  pause, 
and  consider  this  matter.  Is  it  not  much  better  to  increase  the 
rate  of  the  present  ad  valorem  duty,  and  thus  give  additional 
protection  to  our  manufactures,  than  to  be  hurried  into  a  prohib- 
itory system,  for  which  we  are  not  prepared? — a  system,  too, 
so  unjust,  and  so  unequal  in  its  operation,  that,  whilst  it  will  levy 
an  oppressive  tax  from  the  pockets  of  the  poor,  leaves  the  law 
as  it  now  is,  in  regard  to  the  rich.  The  principle  of  this  bill, 
if  principle  it  can  be  called,  is,  the  lower  the  price  between  each 
of  the  minimums,  the  higher  the  ad  valorem  duty.  The  man 
whose  coat  costs  four  dollars  the  square  yard,  and  upwards,  will 
pay  no  additional  tax.     Thus  you  oppress  the  poor  man,  in  pro- 


1827]  DUTIES  ON  WOOL  241 

portion  to  his  poverty,  whilst  you  shield  the  wealthy  from  the 
operation  of  the  law. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.  I  feel  sorry  that  I  have  been  compelled,  by 
a  sense  of  duty,  to  speak  as  I  have  done,  of  the  present  bill.  Its 
extraordinary  nature  must  be  my  apology.  Our  former  tariffs 
have  been  based  upon  broad  principles  of  national  policy.  They 
have  extended  the  blessings,  as  well  as  the  burdens  of  the  system, 
over  the  whole  country.  Every  interest  susceptible  of  protection, 
which  was  in  a  suffering  condition,  has  been  protected  by  them. 
In  truth,  our  former  tariffs  have  been  a  compromise  among  the 
various  and  extended  interests  of  the  Union.  Such,  in  my  opin- 
ion, should  ever  be  the  case.  But  what  is  the  nature  of  this  bill  ? 
It  embraces  a  single  article  of  manufactures,  and  seeks  to  establish 
a  local  monopoly  in  New  England,  in  favor  of  the  manufacturers 
of  that  article.  Its  friends  have  manifested  no  fellow  feeling  for 
other  suffering  interests  of  the  country.  My  constituents  are 
essentially  agricultural.  For  several  years,  the  price  of  grain  has 
been  so  low,  as  scarcely  to  afford  the  farmer  a  comfortable  sub- 
sistence. Although  every  good  man  must  deplore  the  excessive 
use  of  spirits  in  which  the  People  of  this  country  indulge;  yet,  it 
is  the  clearest  dictate  of  policy,  if  the  article  must  be  used,  that 
of  domestic  origin  ought  to  be  preferred.  In  proportion  as  you 
substitute  the  use  of  whiskey  for  foreign  spirits,  in  the  same 
proportion  do  you  increase  the  demand,  and  the  price  for  the 
grain  of  the  farmer.  The  distilling  interest  is,  therefore,  one  of 
great  importance  to  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  and  one  in  which 
she  has,  and  she  feels,  a  deep  interest.  Under  these  impressions, 
I  confess  I  was  utterly  astonished  to  find  that  not  one  Repre- 
sentative from  New  England  voted  for  the  proposition  for  the 
gentleman  from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  Wickliffe,]  to  impose  an  addi- 
tional duty  on  the  importation  of  foreign  spirits. 

If  Pennsylvania  be  true  to  herself,  she  can  vindicate  her 
own  rights.  She  has  but  to  will  it,  and  her  farmers  shall  be  pro- 
tected. Without  the  vote  of  her  Representatives,  this  bill  cannot 
pass.  We  have  it  in  our  power  to  impose  any  reasonable  terms 
which  we  think  proper.  If  we  so  determine,  our  whiskey  will  be 
protected.  I  appeal  then  to  my  colleagues;  I  ask  them,  will  you 
forego  the  only  opportunity  which  we  may  ever  have,  of  encour- 
aging one  of  the  great  staples  of  our  State?  If  this  bill  should 
now  become  a  law,  can  any  person  cherish  the  delusive  hope,  that 
we  may  have  our  staples  protected  the  next  year  ?  We  shall  then 
have  all  to  ask,  and  nothing  to  give.     If  our  farmers  must  pay 

16 


242  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

an  additional  price  of  50  per  cent,  for  the  woollens  which  they 
wear,  let  them  have  some  equivalent  in  the  increased  price  of  their 
grain. 

It  has  been  contended,  that  this  bill  will  essentially  benefit 
the  agricultural  interest;  it  has  even  been  called  an  agricultural 
bill.  Should  it  pass,  the  wool-growers  will  soon  feel  its  in- 
jurious effects  upon  them,  in  the  increased  importation  of  foreign 
wool.  But,  even  if  it  were  beneficial  to  wool-growers,  within  a 
moderate  distance  of  the  great  Eastern  manufactories,  could  it 
produce  any  considerable  effect  upon  our  agriculture  in  the 
Middle  States?  Could  our  Pennsylvania  farmers  incur  the  ex- 
pense of  sending  their  wool  to  New  England,  and  sustain  a 
competition  there  with  the  New  England  wool-grower?  Cer- 
tainly not.  I  believe,  unless  it  be  the  market  which  the  Steuben- 
ville  manufactory  affords  to  the  wool-growers  of  Western  Penn- 
sylvania, but  a  small  quantity  of  our  wool  leaves  the  State.  It  is 
an  idle,  a  delusive  hope,  to  expect  that  it  can  be  transported  to  the 
New  England  manufactories.  It  is  a  mere  shadow ;  but  it  is  one 
which  I  fear  we  shall  exclusively  pursue,  instead  of  obtaining  a 
great,  a  substantial,  and  a  lasting  benefit,  which  is  placed  within 
our  grasp. 

There  is  another  view  of  the  subject,  which  demands  the  at- 
tention of  this  House.  We  ought  never,  by  any  act  of  legisla- 
tion, to  invade  the  sinking  fund  of  ten  millions  per  annum,  which 
has  been  pledged  for  the  payment  of  the  national  debt.  It  should 
ever  remain  inviolate.  It  is  holy  ground.  True  policy  demands 
that  the  national  debt  should  be  extinguished  as  speedily  as  pos- 
sible. In  these  halcyon  times  of  peace,  we  are  too  prone  to 
forget  that  we  may  be  again  involved  in  war ;  that  we  may  again 
have  to  resort  to  the  credit  of  the  nation  to  sustain  its  Govern- 
ment. What  would  be  our  condition,  if  we  were  compelled,  in 
the  vindication  of  the  rights  or  the  honor  of  the  country,  to  enter 
into  the  contest  encumbered  with  a  large  national  debt?  I  leave 
each  gentleman  to  answer  this  question  for  himself.  This  bill, 
should  it  become  a  law,  will  cut  off  about  1,500,000  dollars  from 
our  annual  revenue.  Our  Treasury  is  not  now  in  a  condition  to 
bear  such  a  blow.  This  is  a  striking  point  of  difference  between 
protection  and  prohibition.  In  former  tariffs,  which  have  been 
merely  protecting,  although  the  increase  of  the  duty  diminished 
the  importation  of  the  foreign  article,  and  thus  promoted  our 
domestic  manufactures ;  yet,  that  portion  of  foreign  articles  which 
still  continued  to  be  imported,  by  paying  a  higher  rate  of  duty, 


1827]  CONTROVERSY  WITH  GEORGIA  243 

has,  heretofore,  prevented  the  revenue  from  sinking.     Such  can- 
not be  the  case,  under  the  operation  of  the  present  bill. 

Mr.  B.  again  called  upon  his  colleagues  to  assist  him  in 
imposing  an  additional  duty  on  the  importation  of  foreign  spirits. 
He  had  expected  aid  in  this  attempt  from  New  England,  but 
experience  had  taught  him  that  was  a  vain  hope.  He  had  be- 
lieved, from  some  remarks  upon  a  former  day,  of  the  gentleman 
from  Rhode  Island,  then  in  his  eye,  [Mr.  Burges]  that  Pennsyl- 
vania would  have  had  his  powerful  assistance,  in  protecting  her 
domestic  industry.  He  had  declared  that  he  would  vote  for  an 
additional  duty  on  foreign  spirits,  and  on  hemp.  Mr.  B.  said, 
if  he  were  mistaken,  he  wished  that  gentleman  would  correct 
him.  [Here  Mr.  Burges  observed,  that,  when  the  gentleman 
from  Pennsylvania  had  done,  he  would  then  have  an  opportunity 
of  answering  him.]  Mr.  B.  concluded  by  expressing  a  hope  that 
the  House  would  either  now  adjourn,  as  it  was  very  late,  to 
allow  time  for  reflection,  or  else  negative  this  bill,  and  thus  con- 
strain its  friends  to  unite  with  us  in  protecting  other  great  inter- 
ests of  the  country,  as  well  as  the  manufacture  of  woollens. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  9,  1827, 

ON  THE  CONTROVERSY  BETWEEN    THE  UNITED  STATES 
AND  GEORGIA.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  regretted  that  the  gentleman  from 
Kentucky  [Mr.  Wickliffe]  had  withdrawn  his  motion  to  lay  the 
message  of  the  President  upon  the  table.  He  believed  much 
greater  importance  had  been  attached  to  the  subject,  than  fairly 
belonged  to  it.  In  his  opinion,  it  involved  no  question  of  civil 
war — nothing  which  ought  to  alarm  the  imagination  of  the  most 
timid.  He  thought  the  subject  should  be  laid  upon  the  table,  or 
referred  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union, 
where  he  hoped  it  might  sleep. 

Georgia  claims  all  the  land  within  her  boundaries,  under 
what  has  been  called  the  treaty  of  the  Indian  Springs.  The 
present  Administration  of  the  General  Government  allege,  that 
the  rights  of  Georgia  have  been  limited  by  the  subsequent  Treaty 
of  Washington.  That  State  possesses  the  unquestionable  right 
of  having  this  question  determined  before  the  judicial  tribunals 
of  the  country.     She  has  sent  her  surveyors  into  the  Territory  in 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  1032-1034. 


244  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

dispute,  for  the  purpose  of  surveying  the  land;  and  it  does 
not  at  present  occur  to  me  in  what  other  manner  the  question 
could  have  been  raised  for  judicial  determination.  In  this  state 
of  the  controversy,  the  President  of  the  United  States  has  cer- 
tainly pursued  the  proper  course — the  course  which  the  constitu- 
tion and  laws  of  his  country  clearly  prescribed.  He  has  directed 
the  Surveyors  of  Georgia  to  be  arrested,  and  to  be  brought  before 
a  judicial  tribunal  for  trial.  Upon  this  trial,  the  respective  claims 
of  the  United  States  and  of  Georgia  will  be  fully  and  fairly  inves- 
tigated, and  their  rights  will  be  determined.  This  and  this  only 
is  the  question,  and  the  whole  question. 

Is  there  a  tittle  of  testimony  before  this  House  tending  to 
prove  that  Georgia  will  not  submit  peaceably  to  the  judgment 
of  the  court,  whatever  it  may  be?  It  would  be  doing  injustice  to 
that  State,  for  a  moment  to  suppose  that  she  would  not  yield 
obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  country.  I  ask,  then,  what  necessity 
is  there  for  legislation  upon  this  subject?  Can  legislation,  at 
present,  fairly  influence  the  rights  of  the  parties?  The  issue  is 
joined  between  them,  and  must  be  decided  according  to  existing 
laws. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.  although  I  believe  the  President  has  acted 
with  the  strictest  propriety,  in  referring  this  question  to  the 
judiciary,  yet  I  must  be  permitted  to  say,  that,  in  another  par- 
ticular, I  cannot  yield  him  my  approbation.  He  ought  not  to 
have  prejudged  the  case,  and  proclaimed  his  opinion  to  this 
House,  and  to  the  country.  The  law  should  have  been  permitted 
to  take  its  regular  course.  The  opinion  of  the  President  ought 
not  to  have  been  cast  into  the  scale,  either  on  the  one  side,  or  on 
the  other.  That  opinion  has  been  decidedly  given  against  the 
State  of  Georgia.  I  do  not  profess  to  be  a  warm  admirer  of  the 
President,  but  yet  I  feel  great  respect  for  any  opinion  which  he 
has  deliberately  formed.  It  is  entitled  to  much  consideration; 
and,  therefore,  it  would  have  been  the  more  proper  to  have  con- 
cealed it  whilst  the  cause  was  depending.  [Here  Mr.  B.  read 
the  following  extract  from  the  message  of  the  President.] 

"  It  ought  not,  however,  to  be  disguised,  that  the  act  of  the 
Legislature  of  Georgia,  under  the  construction  given  to  it  by  the 
Governor  of  that  State,  and  the  surveys  made,  or  attempted  by 
his  authority,  beyond  the  boundary  secured  by  the  treaty  of 
Washington,  of  April  last,  to  the  Creek  Indians,  are  in  direct 
violation  of  the  supreme  law  of  this  land,  set  forth  in  a  treaty 


1827]  CONTROVERSY  WITH  GEORGIA  245 

which  has  received  all  the  sanctions  provided  by  the  Constitution, 
which  we  have  been  sworn  to  support  and  maintain." 

Thus  the  Executive  has  assumed  that  the  State  of  Georgia 
is  wrong,  which  is  the  very  question  to  be  decided.  He  has  de- 
termined that  Georgia  has  violated  the  Constitution  and  the  laws ; 
although  this  is  the  very  matter  which  he  has  submitted  to  the 
Judiciary  for  their  decision.     He  has  prejudged  the  case. 

The  President,  in  another  part  of  his  message,  has  held 
out  a  threat  against  Georgia — although  the  question  whether  he 
has  acted  illegally  is  still  pending  and  undetermined.  [Here  Mr. 
Buchanan  read  the  following  extract  from  the  message  :] 

"  In  the  present  instance,  it  is  my  duty  to  say,  that,  if  the 
Legislative  and  Executive  authorities  of  the  State  of  Georgia 
should  persevere  in  acts  of  encroachment  upon  the  territories 
secured  by  a  solemn  treaty  to  the  Indians,  and  the  laws  of  the 
Union  remain  unaltered,  a  superadded  obligation,  even  higher 
than  that  of  human  authority,  will  compel  the  Executive  of  the 
United  States  to  enforce  the  laws,  and  fulfil  the  duties  of  the 
nation  by  all  the  force  committed  for  that  purpose  to  his  charge. " 

It  may  be  the  duty  of  the  Executive  thus  to  act,  in  case  the 
State  of  Georgia  should  persevere,  after  the  determination  of  her 
rights  has  been  referred  to  the  Judiciary.  Upon  this  point,  I  shall 
not  at  present  express  any  opinion.  But,  Sir,  was  such  language 
of  the  President  conciliatory  towards  a  sister  State  ?  Or  was  it 
not  rather  calculated  to  provoke  that  State,  and  produce  the  very 
evil  which  he  dreads?  I  hope  Georgia  may  submit  peaceably  to 
the  Judicial  tribunals  of  her  country.  If  she  should  not,  she 
will  not  receive  my  support.  I  trust,  also,  she  will  forbear  from 
the  expression  of  those  angry  feelings,  which  the  occasion  is  well 
calculated  to  excite. 

I  repeat  that  the  President  has  my  entire  approbation,  so  far 
as  respects  the  reference  of  this  controversy  to  the  Judiciary.  I 
am  sorry  it  has  been  referred  to  any  committee  in  another  body. 
It  should  have  been  left  exclusively  to  the  courts  of  justice.  For 
the  purpose  of  preventing  the  angry  discussion  which  would 
probably  arise  upon  this  subject,  Mr.  B.  said  he  would  move  to 
lay  the  message  upon  the  table. 

The  question  being  taken  on  this  motion,  it  was  decided  in 
the  negative. 


246  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

REMARKS,    FEBRUARY    10,   1827, 

ON  THE  DUTIES  ON  WOOL  AND  WOOLLENS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  when  I  made  the  motion  now  under 
consideration,  it  was  not  my  intention  to  trouble  the  House  with 
a  single  remark.  It  was  my  sincere  wish,  that  the  question  should 
have  been  immediately  taken  and  decided  by  yeas  and  nays.  I 
presume,  however,  that  all  who  hear  me  must  feel  that  I  am 
imperatively  called  upon  to  reply  to  the  observations  which  have 
been  made  by  my  colleague,  [Mr.  Lawrence,]  whom  I  heretofore 
believed  to  be  my  friend.  That  gentleman  has  thought  proper 
to  attribute  to  me  conduct,  of  which  I  believe  I  never  before  was 
suspected.  I  think  I  may  appeal  with  confidence  to  those  with 
whom  I  have  long  served  upon  this  floor,  whether,  upon  any 
occasion,  I  have  attempted  to  defeat  any  measure  by  unfair 
means.  I  have  always  been  willing  to  march  up  fairly  to  every 
question,  and  to  vote  and  to  act  as  I  thought  right,  and  then  to 
leave  my  judgment  to  be  re  judged  by  my  constituents  and  my 
country. 

My  colleague  asks  why  I  did  not  submit  my  motion  earlier? 
Although  I  deny  his  right  to  ask  me  such  a  question,  yet  I  shall 
proceed  to  answer  his  inquiry.  Since  I  came  out  of  the  Chair, 
I  have  been  always  prepared  to  offer  an  amendment  to  this  bill, 
for  the  purpose  of  imposing  additional  duties  on  the  importation 
of  foreign  spirits  and  foreign  hemp.  I  have  been  constantly 
waiting  for  an  opportunity  of  submitting  this  proposition  to  the 
House,  at  a  time  when  there  would  be  some  chance  of  obtaining 
a  direct  decision  upon  it ;  but  have  never  been  successful  until  the 
present  occasion.  Other  amendments  have  hitherto  been  in  my 
way,  and  have  precluded  me  from  making  the  attempt.  The 
previous  question  has  also  been  interposed,  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  or  defeating  all  amendments. 

With  what  propriety,  then,  can  my  colleague,  who  has  him- 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  1068-1070,  1080. 
Mr.  Buchanan  had  moved  that  the  bill  making  alterations  in  the  tariff  acts 
be  recommitted  to  the  committee  on  domestic  manufactures,  with  instructions 
so  to  amend  it  as  to  make  the  duties  on  the  importation  of  foreign  woollen 
goods  and  foreign  wool  commence  at  the  same  time ;  and  to  make  the 
duties  the  same  on  foreign  wool  whether  imported  upon  the  skin  or  not; 
also  to  increase  the  duty  on  the  importation  of  foreign  spirits  not  less  than 
ten  cents  per  gallon ;  and  also  to  increase  the  duty  on  the  importation  of 
foreign  hemp  not  less  than  five  dollars  per  ton. 


1827]  DUTIES  ON  WOOL  247 

self  voted  for  the  previous  question,  and  thus  pursued  a  course 
calculated  to  prevent  and  to  defeat  every  amendment,  put  such 
an  interrogatory  to  me?  If,  by  the  Rules  of  the  House,  in  order 
to  accomplish  my  purpose,  I  must  move  to  recommit  this  bill, 
that  necessity  has  been  imposed  upon  me  by  the  course  pursued 
by  my  colleague  and  others,  who  believe  this  bill  to  be  perfect  in 
its  present  form.  My  colleague  ought  not  to  be  surprised  by  this 
motion:  for  I  long  since  gave  notice  that,  if  the  House  should 
determine  to  consider  this  bill  at  the  present  session,  it  was  my 
determination  to  insist  that  the  farmers  of  Pennsylvania  should 
receive  protection,  as  well  as  the  woollen  manufacturers  of  New 
England.  I  distinctly  stated,  that  I  would  offer  an  amendment, 
similar  in  its  nature  to  the  motion  which  I  have  now  presented; 
and  for  a  long  time,  I  have  had  the  sections  which  I  intended  to 
propose  prepared,  and  in  my  desk.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  I 
am  not  liable  to  the  censure  of  my  colleague,  or  that  of  any  other 
person. 

My  colleague  has  propounded  another  question  to  me,  still 
more  extraordinary  in  its  character  than  his  first  interrogatory. 
He  has  asked  me,  how  can  any  Pennsylvanian  oppose  this  bill? 
He  has  said  that  Pennsylvania  has  a  deep  interest  in  this  measure ; 
and  that  I  have  abandoned  that  interest,  by  submitting  my  motion. 
He  has  also,  in  effect,  declared  that  no  man  could  obtain,  or  could 
preserve  the  confidence  of  that  State,  who  should  oppose  the  pres- 
ent bill.  Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  I  feel  an  attachment  as  warm,  a  devo- 
tion as  ardent,  for  my  native  State,  as  my  colleague  can  feel.  I 
would  go  as  far  to  maintain  either  her  interest  or  her  honor,  as 
any  of  her  Representatives  upon  this  floor.  I  have  no  interest 
but  what  is  her  interest.  Whilst  I  have  the  honor  to  stand  here 
before  the  nation,  as  one  of  her  Representatives,  I  shall  never 
be  driven  from  that  course  which  I  believe  will  promote  her  true 
welfare  and  glory,  by  such  threats  as  my  colleague  has  thought 
proper  to  utter.  His  prophecies  have  no  terrors  for  me.  Whether 
my  course  shall  be  popular  at  home  or  not,  I  know  that  I  have 
done  what,  in  my  conscience,  I  believed  to  be  my  duty.  For  my 
vote,  I  rejoice  that  I  am  answerable,  not  to  my  colleague,  but  to 
my  constituents  and  my  State — tribunals,  in  whose  judgment  my 
confidence  is  unbounded. 

My  colleague  has  propounded  several  interrogatories  to  me; 
in  my  turn,  I  shall  now  take  the  liberty  of  asking  him  a  few 
questions.  The  provision  of  this  bill  which  found  the  most 
favor  in  my  eyes,  was  the  protection  which  it  proposed  to  extend 


248  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

to  the  wool-growers  of  this  country.  I  ask  my  colleague  if  this 
protection  bears  any  just  proportion  to  that  which  is  afforded  to 
the  woollen  manufactures?  Is  it  equal,  or  nearly  equal,  in  de- 
gree? Does  it  commence  at  the  same  time?  This  bill  pretends 
to  be  a  compromise  between  the  growers  and  manufacturers  of 
wool;  but  it  is  clear,  that  the  agriculturists,  upon  this,  as  upon 
all  other  occasions,  have  got  the  worst  of  the  bargain.  Whilst 
the  manufacturer,  after  the  first  of  August  next,  will  be  pro- 
tected by  an  enormous  increase  of  duty,  amounting,  in  a  very 
great  degree,  to  a  prohibition  of  the  importation  of  foreign 
woollens,  the  wool-grower  must  be  content  to  wait  until  the  first 
day  of  June,  1828,  when  there  will  be  an  increase  of  duty  on  the 
importation  of  foreign  wool  equal  only  to  two  cents  per  pound, 
and  on  the  first  day  of  June,  1829,  another  two  cents  will  be 
added.  This  bill  will  afford  the  manufacturers  an  opportunity, 
between  its  passage  and  the  first  day  of  June,  1828,  of  obtaining 
a  sufficient  supply  of  foreign  wool,  without  any  increase  of  duty, 
to  keep  them  in  operation  for  years.  Does  any  gentleman  sup- 
pose— can  any  gentleman  expect,  that  the  patriotism  of  the  manu- 
facturers— that  their  love  for  the  wool-growers  of  their  own 
country,  will  prevent  them  from  obtaining  a  foreign  supply? 
Before  this  can  be  believed,  the  laws  which  govern  human  nature 
must  be  reversed,  and  selfish  feelings  must  be  eradicated  from  the 
human  bosom.  In  the  mean  time,  our  wool-growers  must  suffer 
the  evils  which  will  flow  from  an  immense  importation  of  foreign 
wool. 

But  this  is  not  all.  Will  the  wool-grower  receive  any  addi- 
tional protection,  even  after  the  first  of  June,  1829?  Upon  this 
point  I  entertain  serious  doubts;  and  I  find  that  some  gentlemen 
of  this  House,  better  acquainted  with  the  subject  than  myself,  are 
of  the  same  opinion.  Under  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  wool  upon 
the  skin  will  continue  to  be  imported  at  the  present  rate  of  duty. 
Now,  sir,  although  the  wool-grower  in  foreign  countries  never 
would  kill  his  flock,  merely  for  the  purpose  of  evading  our  duties, 
by  sending  his  wool  upon  the  skin ;  yet,  it  is  equally  certain,  that 
the  fleeces  of  those  sheep  which  are  killed  for  food,  will  naturally 
be  brought  to  our  markets.  By  passing  this  bill  we  shall  estab- 
lish a  discriminating  duty  in  their  favor.  In  this  manner,  there 
will  be  a  sufficient  quantity  of  foreign  wool  imported  to  create 
a  competition,  and  to  keep  down  the  price  of  our  domestic  wool. 
I  think,  therefore,  that,  so  far  as  this  bill  proposes  to  protect  the 
wool-grower,  it  is  a  mere  delusion.     I  put  the  question  seriously 


1827]  DIPLOMATIC  OUTFITS  249 

to  my  colleague,  who  represents  a  wool-growing,  not  a  manufac- 
turing district,  how  he  can  justify  an  opposition  to  my  motion, 
which  proposes  to  afford  something  like  the  same  protection  to  the 
wool-grower  which  this  bill  does  to  the  manufacturer?  I  reverse 
his  question — and  ask  him,  how  he  can  vote  for  such  a  bill? 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  I  am  the  decided  friend  of  a  tariff  upon 
broad  national  principles;  but  I  never  can  support  a  bill  of  this 
unjust  and  partial  character:  a  bill  which  protects  the  woollen 
manufacturer  of  New  England,  whilst  it  leaves  the  agriculture 
of  my  own  State  to  perish.  Pennsylvania  has,  beyond  compari- 
son, a  much  greater  interest  in  obtaining  an  increased  duty  on 
foreign  spirits  and  foreign  hemp,  than  on  foreign  wool  and 
woollens.  Upon  this  subject,  however,  I  shall  not  repeat  the 
observations  which  I  have  made  heretofore.  I  sincerely  believe, 
should  my  motion  prevail,  so  far  from  defeating  the  bill,  it  will 
be  carried  by  an  increased  majority.  I  confess  I  felt  surprised, 
both  at  the  style  and  the  manner  of  my  colleague's  observations. 
He  is  a  gentleman  for  whom  I  have  always  felt  much  respect.  If 
this  had  not  been  the  case,  my  reply  should  have  been  dictated  in 
a  very  different  spirit.  I  do  not  expect  my  motion  will  prevail ; 
I  know  it  cannot  prevail  without  the  support  of  my  colleagues.  I 
shall  be  proud,  however,  to  have  the  opportunity  of  recording  my 
vote  in  its  favor. 


[Mr.  Buchanan  here  explained.  He  said  that,  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  revenue,  he  had  taken  the  distinction  between  protec- 
tion and  prohibition.  An  increase  of  duty  for  the  purpose  of 
protection  diminished  importation,  and  thus  encouraged  the  do- 
mestic manufacturer.  It,  at  the  same  time,  preserved  the  revenue 
from  sinking,  by  the  higher  duties  which  were  levied  on  the 
foreign  articles  still  imported.  Such  would  be  the  effect  of  a 
mere  increase  of  duty  either  on  woollens  or  foreign  spirits;  but 
prohibition  would  produce  an  effect  entirely  different.] 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  15,  1827, 

ON  OUTFITS  FOR  DIPLOMATIC  OFFICERS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  rose  chiefly  to  express  his  dissent 
from  the  doctrine  which  had  been  advanced  by  his  friends  from 


Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  1187-1188. 


250  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

Georgia  and  Pennsylvania,  [Mr.  Forsyth  and  Mr.  Ingham.]  If 
he  understood  those  gentlemen  correctly,  they  opposed  this  appro- 
priation, because  an  unexpended  balance  remained  of  the  appro- 
priation of  the  last  year,  out  of  which  the  President  might,  at  his 
discretion,  give  Mr.  Poinsett  an  outfit,  under  the  act  of  1810. 
Sir,  said  Mr.  B.  I  deny  that  the  President  has  any  such  authority 
under  that  law. 


Mr.  Buchanan  said  he  had  yielded  the  floor  to  his  friend  from 
Georgia,  that  he  might  make  an  explanation,  not  an  argument. 

Standing  here  as  a  representative  of  the  People,  I  should  feel 
that  I  had  not  discharged  my  duty,  [said  Mr.  B.]  if  I  were 
silently  to  suffer  this  appropriation  to  be  altogether  stricken  out 
of  the  bill,  when  I  would  be  among  the  first  to  disapprove  the  con- 
duct of  the  President,  should  he  allow  this  outfit  without  the  sanc- 
tion of  Congress.  The  President  has  pursued  the  proper  course 
in  coming  here  to  ask  for  it.  I  rejoice  that  he  has  done  so;  and 
the  question  is  now  left  to  be  determined  by  the  sound  discretion 
of  this  House. 

The  different  acts  of  Congress,  which  were  in  force  previous 
to  1 8 10,  made  no  special  provision  for  cases  in  which  the  Presi- 
dent might,  or  might  not,  allow  an  outfit.  They  did  not  prevent 
him  from  allowing  an  outfit  to  a  minister  who  should  be  trans- 
ferred from  one  court  to  another.  Their  language  is  general. 
But,  sir,  what  is  now  the  case?  I  deny  that,  under  the  act  of 
1 8 10,  there  is  the  least  ground  upon  which  to  rest  a  doubt.  The 
language  of  that  law  places  doubt  at  defiance.  There  is  no  room 
for  construction.  It  has  expressly  limited  the  power  of  the  Presi- 
dent, in  the  allowance  of  outfits.  They  can  be  allowed  only  to 
ministers,  on  going  from  the  United  States  to  any  foreign  coun- 
try. Mr.  B.  here  read  the  following  clause  from  the  act  of  1810: 
"  Provided  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  President  of  the  United 
States  to  allow  to  a  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  or  Charge  des 
Affaires,  on  going  from  the  United  States  to  any  foreign  country, 
an  outfit,  which  shall,  in  no  case,  exceed  one  year's  full  salary 
of  such  Minister,  or  Charge  des  Affaires.,, 

Thus  it  clearly  appears  that  Congress  have  reserved  to  them- 
selves the  decision  of  all  cases,  except  the  allowance  of  an  outfit 
to  a  Minister  or  Charge,  on  his  leaving  this  country.  Has  the 
President,  then,  any  power  to  allow  Mr.  Poinsett  an  outfit  ?  Cer- 
tainly not.     He  has  already  received  one,  when  he  left  the  United 


1827]  DIPLOMATIC  OUTFITS  251 

States.  He  is  now  in  Mexico,  and  Tacubaya  is  distant  but  nine 
miles  from  that  city. 

I  know  that  the  act  of  1810  has  been  violated  in  several  in- 
stances; and  I  know  that  the  present  administration  ought  not 
alone  to  be  blamed  for  such  violations.  They  existed  before  it 
came  into  power.  I  do  not  care  how  many  precedents  have  been 
established  against  it.  It  is  still  the  law  of  the  land.  Its  viola- 
tion cannot  be  sanctioned  by  this  House,  unless  we  are  willing 
to  place  the  Executive  above  the  law.  The  doctrine  of  prece- 
dents, in  such  cases,  is  dangerous  in  the  extreme.  One  precedent 
begets  another.  A  hard  case,  having  reason  for  its  support, 
makes  the  first  precedent.  It  is  made  the  foundation  for  another 
and  another,  until  the  law  is  forgotten  or  disregarded.  If  we 
should  continue  to  pursue  this  course,  we  shall  get  fairly  on  the 
road  to  ruin.  I  feel  gratified,  therefore,  that  the  President  has 
come  forward  and  asked  us  for  this  appropriation.  It  is  but 
justice  to  myself  that  I  should  say  so. 

The  question  then  recurs,  ought  we  to  allow  an  outfit?  and,  if 
so,  how  much?  I  am  free  to  confess,  that,  in  my  opinion,  Mr. 
Poinsett  should  have  some  additional  allowance.  His  expenses 
must  be  increased  by  his  new  mission.  He  must  often  visit  Tacu- 
baya, and  he  will  be  obliged  to  keep  up  a  hospitable  intercourse 
with  the  Ministers  of  the  different  nations  who  may  there  be 
assembled.  I  would  not  increase  his  expenses  and  his  labor,  with- 
out adding  to  his  compensation.  But  I  cannot  agree  that  he  shall 
have  a  full  outfit.  Surely  he  is  not  entitled  to  receive  as  much 
for  travelling  from  Mexico  to  Tacubaya,  as  he  would  be  for 
going  from  the  United  States  to  London,  to  Paris,  or  to  St.  Peters- 
burg. The  President  has  no  discretion  to  allow  more  than  9,000 
dollars  as  an  outfit,  even  in  such  cases.  To  allow  this  amount 
to  Mr.  Poinsett,  in  the  case  now  before  us,  would  be  to  destroy 
that  just  proportion  between  compensation  and  service  which 
ought  ever  to  exist.  It  would  be  unjust  to  Mr.  Poinsett  to  allow 
him  nothing;  it  would  be  equally  unjust  to  the  People  of  the 
United  States  to  allow  him  9,000  dollars.  I  am  willing  to  give 
him  half  an  outfit,  and  I,  therefore,  move  to  strike  out  9,000 
dollars,  and  insert  4,500  dollars. 

The  Speaker  informed  Mr.  Buchanan,  that,  in  the  present 
state  of  the  question,  his  motion  was  not  in  order. 

Mr.  B.  then  declared,  that  if  the  House  should  refuse  to  grant 
$9,000,  he  would  move  to  insert  $4,500. 


252  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  16,  1827, 

ON  AN  APPROPRIATION  FOR  THE  CONTINUATION  OF 
THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  that,  as  he  intended  to  vote  for  this 
appropriation,  he  thought  it  was  proper  to  make  known  the 
reasons  upon  which  he  should  act.  He  had  not  voted  for  the 
extension  of  the  road  to  Zanesville,  because  he  thought  experi- 
ence had  sufficiently  shown  that  Congress  ought  not  to  make  a 
road  unless  they  could  provide  the  means  for  keeping  it  in  repair ; 
and  the  moment  they  attempted  this,  they  introduced  a  subject 
of  endless  contention.  For  this  reason,  if  the  present  was  a  new 
measure,  it  should  not  receive  his  approbation ;  but  it  was  begun 
and  in  progress,  and  it  was  now  too  late  to  oppose  it.  Congress 
had  passed  upon  the  question;  the  road  had  been  laid  out;  it 
was  partly  completed;  bridges  had  been  erected;  and  to  stop 
at  such  a  point  a  work  commenced  under  the  faith  of  an  act  of 
Congress,  was  not,  in  his  view,  compatible  with  the  dignity  or 
good  faith  of  the  Government. 

There  was  one  other  consideration.  The  appropriation  did 
not  involve  any  constitutional  question — but  one,  "  Whether  the 
United  States  may,  as  proprietor,  make  a  road  in  a  State  with  the 
consent  of  that  State?  "  for,  in  the  present  case,  the  consent  of 
Ohio  had  been  obtained.  The  right  to  do  this,  as  proprietor,  with 
consent,  and  the  right  to  erect  toll-gates,  as  a  sovereign,  without 
consent,  were  widely  different. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  20,  1827, 

ON  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS.2 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  rose  to  state  the  reasons  which  would 
induce  him  to  vote  in  favor  of  the  appropriation  of  $30,000  to 
defray  the  expense  of  surveying  routes  for  roads  and  canals, 
during  the  present  year.  It  was  not  his  intention  to  follow  his 
friend  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Rives]  through  the  extensive  range 
of  his  argument.  The  late  period  of  the  Session,  and  the  mass 
of  important  business  which  yet  remained  untouched,  admonished 
him  not  to  pursue  such  a  course.  Even  if  he  had  considered  it  a 
proper  time  to  enter  extensively  into  the  debate,  he  should  not  be 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  1220. 

J  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  1283-1285. 


1827]  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  253 

disposed  to  controvert  many  of  the  facts  which  that  gentleman 
had  stated,  or  the  arguments  which  he  had  urged.  In  most  of 
them  he  entirely  concurred. 

What,  sir,  is  the  nature  of  the  question  now  presented  to 
the  House?  In  April,  1824,  after  a  long  and  able  discussion, 
Congress  passed  the  act  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  the  neces- 
sary surveys,  plans,  and  estimates,  upon  the  subjects  of  roads  and 
canals.  This  law  gives  to  the  President  the  power  of  causing 
such  routes  for  roads  and  canals  to  be  surveyed,  as  he  may  deem 
of  national  importance,  in  a  commercial  or  military  point  of  view, 
or  necessary  for  the  transportation  of  the  public  mail.  The 
gentleman  from  Virginia  has,  in  effect,  called  upon  us  to  repeal 
this  important  act,  in  an  appropriation  bill,  at  the  very  close  of 
the  session.  Nothing  should  ever  be  attempted  in  such  a  bill, 
but  to  appropriate  the  money  necessary  for  carrying  into  effect 
existing  laws.  The  great  principles  of  our  national  policy  which 
have  received  the  sanction  of  Congress  in  solemn  acts  of  legisla- 
tion, ought  never  to  be  brought  into  discussion  upon  the  general 
appropriation  bills,  which  we  must  annually  pass.  This  is  not 
the  proper  time.  The  gentleman  might,  at  an  earlier  period  of 
the  session,  have  called  upon  us  to  repeal,  or  to  modify,  the  act  of 
1824.  Whilst  that  act  remains  upon  your  statute  book,  it  would 
be  at  war  with  the  correct  rules  of  legislation  virtually  to  blot 
it  out,  by  refusing  the  appropriation  necessary  to  carry  it  into 
effect.  In  the  passage  of  an  appropriation  bill,  there  are  but  two 
proper  considerations — Do  existing  laws  demand  the  appropria- 
tion? And,  if  so,  what  is  the  amount  necessary  to  give  them 
effect?  If  the  President  has  abused  the  discretion  vested  in  him 
by  the  act  of  1824 — if  he  has  violated  the  high  trust  which  it 
conferred  upon  him  for  the  public  good,  and  used  it  for  political 
purposes — these  are  powerful  reasons  why  that  trust  should  be 
withdrawn,  and  why  it  should  be  vested  in  Congress.  Without 
expressing  any  opinion  at  the  present  time  upon  the  conduct  of 
the  Executive,  I  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  Congress  to  specify,  by  law,  the  routes  which 
ought  to  be  surveyed.  It  is  a  power  which  properly  belongs 
to  them.  At  the  next  session,  if  the  gentleman  from  Vir- 
ginia and  myself  should  again  meet,  I  shall  cheerfully  assist 
him  in  effecting  such  a  change  in  the  existing  law.  But,  if  he 
should  now  be  successful  in  his  attempt,  what  will  be  the  effect? 
Does  he  propose  to  designate,  in  this  bill,  the  routes  to  be  sur- 
veyed during  the  present  year?     He  does  not;   he  cannot.     The 


254  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

inevitable  consequence,  in  case  the  appropriation  should  now  be 
stricken  out,  must  be,  at  once,  to  paralyze  the  whole  system  of 
internal  improvement.  I  am  not  prepared,  and  I  trust  the  House 
is  not  prepared,  for  such  a  result. 

For  what  purpose  have  we  established  a  Military  Academy 
at  West  Point?  Is  it  not  that  the  skill  and  the  science  which 
the  graduates  of  that  institution  acquire  may  become  beneficial 
to  the  country?  Several  brigades  of  Topographical  Engineers, 
constituted  chiefly  of  the  officers  of  your  Army,  have  been  organ- 
ized since  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1824,  and  have  been  employed 
in  surveying  the  routes  of  Roads  and  Canals.  Withdraw  this 
appropriation,  and  you  suspend  all  their  operations.  You  take 
many  of  our  officers  from  an  employment  highly  useful  to  them- 
selves and  to  their  country ;  and  you  doom  them  either  to  lounge 
away  their  time  in  idleness,  or  you  send  them  to  drill  the  soldiers, 
at  what  has  been  called  the  School  of  Discipline,  at  Old  Point 
Comfort. 

If  the  Government  of  the  United  States  should  never  expend 
a  single  dollar  upon  the  construction  of  Roads  and  Canals,  still 
the  services  of  our  Engineers  would  be  of  immense  importance 
to  the  country.  In  this  'manner,  public  attention  is  directed 
towards  the  subject  of  internal  improvement.  The  numerous 
advantages  which  our  country  possesses  for  the  construction  of 
Roads  and  Canals,  are  brought  fully  and  fairly  into  the  view 
of  the  People.  Accurate  surveys  and  accurate  estimates  of  the 
expense  of  different  routes  are  furnished.  A  wide  field  is  thus 
presented  for  the  enterprise  of  individuals  and  of  States,  and  a 
salutary  impulse  is  given  to  the  great  cause  of  Internal  Improve- 
ment. In  my  opinion  it  would  be  miserable  economy  to  abandon 
all  these  advantages,  for  the  sake  of  saving  thirty  thousand 
dollars. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  complains,  with  justice,  that 
the  great  number  of  surveys  which  have  been  already  made,  and 
are  now  making,  in  different  portions  of  the  Union,  have  excited 
false  hopes  among  the  People.  That  the  present  Administration, 
by  holding  out  the  delusive  expectation  that  Roads  and  Canals 
would  be  constructed  by  the  General  Government,  wherever  routes 
had  been  surveyed,  have  attempted  to  purchase  the  favor  of  the 
People  with  their  own  money.  If  this  be  the  case,  the  evil  will 
soon  cure  itself.  Such  hopes  cannot  long  continue,  after  the 
publication  of  the  document  which  we  have  lately  received  from 
the  War  Department.  That  document  presents  us  a  list  of  thirty- 
five  different  routes  for  Roads  and  Canals,  which  the  Department 


1827]  REPAIRS  TO  WHITE  HOUSE  U5 

has  already  ordered  to  be  surveyed.  We  are  not  furnished  with 
estimates  of  the  expense  of  their  construction;  but  the  number 
is  so  great,  that,  hereafter,  the  People  of  this  country  will  never 
be  persuaded  to  believe  the  General  Government  is  either  able 
or  willing  to  construct  all,  or  even  any  considerable  number  of 
those  Roads  and  Canals,  the  routes  of  which  may  be  surveyed 
under  their  authority.  We  have  at  present  no  money  to  spare 
for  any  one  of  these  objects,  unless  we  should  determine  to  violate 
the  sinking  fund,  and  thus  postpone  the  payment  of  the  national 
debt.  Still,  however,  an  extension  of  these  surveys  will  be  highly 
useful,  inasmuch  as  they  will  employ  the  science  of  our  officers 
in  pointing  out  to  the  People  such  works  of  public  improvement 
as  may  be  advantageously  constructed  by  themselves,  and  in 
stimulating  them  to  exertion,  by  inducing  them  to  undertake  their 
accomplishment,  and  to  depend  upon  themselves  for  success. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  made  an  observation 
which  I  feel  myself  called  upon  to  notice.  He  has  stated  that  the 
survey  of  the  Buffalo  road  was  probably  intended  to  secure  the 
allegiance  of  Pennsylvania  to  the  present  Administration.  In 
my  opinion  they  should  stand  acquitted  of  any  such  purpose. 
To  suppose  that  such  was  their  intention,  would  be  to  suppose 
them  ignorant  both  of  the  character  and  feelings  of  the  people 
of  that  State.  When  was  Pennsylvania  ever  known  to  be  faith- 
less to  the  cause  which  she  had  once  espoused?  When  was  she 
ever  known  to  have  abandoned  the  man  in  whom  she  once  con- 
fided, without  any  reason  to  justify  her  change?  To  be  steady 
to  her  purpose  has  ever  been  a  striking  trait  in  her  character. 
She  will  continue  to  be  true  to  her  own  cause.  I  cannot,  there- 
fore, for  a  moment,  believe,  that  the  present  Administration 
could  ever  have  conceived  the  idea,  that  it  was  possible  to  purchase 
Pennsylvania  by  bestowing  upon  her  such  a  boon  as  the  survey 
of  a  national  road  from  Washington  to  Buffalo. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  23,  1827, 

ON  AN  APPROPRIATION  FOR  FURNISHING  AND  REPAIRING 
THE  WHITE  HOUSE.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  was  surprised,  after  being  out  of  the 
House  about  an  hour,  to  find  an  entire  change  of  sides.     His 


1  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  1376. 


256  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

friend  from  New  York,  who  had  usually  been  on  the  opposite 
side,  and  the  two  gentlemen  from  Massachusetts,  had  changed 
sides.  He  hoped  he  should  never  give  a  vote  against  finishing  1 
the  palace  we  have  built,  worthy  of  the  dignity  of  the  nation; 
and  if  he  now  voted  against  the  25,000  dollars,  it  would  be  in  con- 
sequence of  the  arguments  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts. 
He  did  not  think  the  appropriation  of  25,000  dollars  too  much. 
It  could  not  have  been  improperly  used,  because  it  had  not  been 
drawn.  He  should  vote  for  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts;  but  if  he  would  withdraw  his  amendment, 
he  would  vote  for  the  25,000  dollars,  not  doubting  the  vote  would 
be  sustained  by  the  American  People. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  24,  1827, 

ON    THE    REPAIR    OF    THE    CUMBERLAND    ROAD.2 

Mr.  Buchanan  observed,  that  it  would,  probably,  be  recol- 
lected, he  had  given  notice,  on  a  former  occasion,  that,  when  this 
bill  was  taken  up,  he  should  move  an  amendment,  which  went  to 
strike  out  that  part  of  it  which  provides  for  the  erection  of  toll- 
gates.  He  had  been  prevented,  by  circumstances  which  were 
known  to  the  House,  from  redeeming  this  pledge.  He  was  ready 
to  do  it  now,  but  was  requested  by  gentlemen  all  around  him, 
not  to  bring  forward  his  amendment  until  the  bill  should  have 
passed  through  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  should  come 
into  the  House  for  discussion.  As  the  present  was  the  last  day 
appropriated  for  the  consideration  of  private  bills,  (among  which, 
it  seemed,  the  present  bill  was  to  be  classed,)  and,  as  from  the 
magnitude  of  the  subject,  he  had  no  doubt  its  discussion  would 
occupy  the  whole  day,  he  had  concluded  to  yield  to  the  suggestion 
which  was  pressed  upon  him,  and  would  pursue  the  course  that 
gentlemen  requested. 


Mr.  Buchanan  complained  that  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
had  attempted  to  distinguish  the  advocates  and  opponents  of  the 
present  bill,  as  the  friends  and  enemies  of  Internal  Improvement ; 


1  So  in  the  Register  of  Debates,  but  doubtless  is  an  error  for  "  furnishing." 

2  Register  of  Debates,  19  Cong.  2  Sess.  1826-1827,  III.  1397,  1398.  I399~ 
1400,  1 403-1 404. 


1827]  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  257 

and  though  he  had  not  expressly  asserted  that  he  [Mr.  B.]  was 
hostile  to  those  improvements,  he  left  it  as  a  fair  inference  to  be 
drawn  by  all  who  heard  him. 

[Mr.  Mercer  explained:  He  had  alluded,  in  his  remarks, 
not  to  the  gentleman  particularly,  but  to  all  the  members  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Delegation.] 

Mr.  B.  resumed.  None  could  be  more  friendly  to  this  great 
national  undertaking,  the  Cumberland  Road,  than  he  was,  and 
ever  had  been.  He  had  no  doubt  as  to  the  constitutional  question 
of  the  power  of  the  Federal  Government,  so  far  as  that  power 
could  be  usefully  applied  to  this  object :  but  he  doubted  its  power 
to  set  up  toll-gates,  and  exact  toll  of  all  who  travelled  the  road. 
He  again  declared,  explicitly,  that  he  was  not  opposed  to  the  con- 
struction of  the  road.  So  far  from  being  hostile  to  it,  he  was 
willing  to  postpone  the  discussion  of  the  great  question  concern- 
ing the  extent  of  the  power  of  the  General  Government,  and  to 
grant  any  sum,  in  moderation,  to  save  the  road  from  ruin.  If  the 
gentleman  from  Maryland  would  be  content  with  inserting 
30,000  dollars,  instead  of  50,000  dollars,  in  the  blank  in  his 
amendment,  that  amendment  should  have  his  cheerful  support. 
The  bill,  in  its  original  form,  proposed  but  45,000  dollars  for 
the  whole  expense  of  repairs  and  toll-gates,  &c.  Why,  then, 
should  the  gentleman  ask  50,000  dollars  for  repairs  merely? 
If  the  friends  of  the  amendment  were  willing  to  take  such  a 
sum  as  was  needed  to  save  the  road  from  ruin,  he  was  ready  to 
vote  for  the  appropriation.  But,  if  the  question  as  to  toll-gates 
was  forced  upon  him,  he  should  be  compelled,  by  what  he  owed 
himself,  to  go  at  large  into  an  explanation  of  the  reasons  which 
forbade  him  to  advocate  such  a  measure. 


Mr.  Buchanan  expressed  great  astonishment  that  the  gentle- 
man who  had  just  taken  his  seat  should  have  addressed  such  an 
appeal  to  him.  He  was  but  a  solitary  individual,  and  had  never 
claimed,  in  the  remotest  manner,  to  be  considered  or  treated  as 
the  organ  of  the  Pennsylvania  Delegation  on  that  floor.  He  was 
there  on  his  own  responsibility.  He  answered  for  no  man,  and 
was  controlled  by  no  man.  He  knew  his  own  opinion,  and  was 
willing  to  express  it  whenever  properly  called  upon.  He  had 
already  declared,  and  now  again  proclaimed  his  willingness  to 
postpone  the  argument  as  to  toll-gates,  and  to  support  the  amend- 
ment appropriating  30,000  dollars  for  present  repairs.     He  did 

17 


258  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

not  mean  to  be  drawn  into  any  further  argument  on  the  subject, 
unless  the  whole  question  was  to  be  gone  into,  and  he  regretted 
that  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  had  thought  proper  to  begin 
the  discussion  on  the  constitutional  question.  For  himself,  he 
could  say,  after  much  reflection,  that  he  believed  that  the  assump- 
tion of  the  power  to  establish  toll-gates  by  the  authority  of  the 
General  Government,  would  be  a  longer  stride  towards  consolida- 
tion than  any  other  which  had  yet  been  taken.  He  viewed  it  as 
a  fearful  effort  to  destroy  our  present  happy  system  of  Govern- 
ment. If  the  Government  had  power  to  do  this  on  one  road, 
they  had  power  to  do  it  on  all  roads,  whether  constructed  for  the 
purpose  of  commercial  intercourse  or  of  war.  They  might  take 
at  once  the  whole  of  those  roads  under  their  immediate  jurisdic- 
tion, and  punish,  with  sovereign  authority,  all  offences  committed 
thereon.  There  was  a  great  difference  between  the  State  and 
Federal  jurisdictions.  If  the  latter  were  established,  the  former 
must  be  prostrated.  He  did  not,  however,  wish,  at  this  time,  to 
enter  at  all  upon  this  question.  Nor  should  he  have  said  thus 
much,  had  not  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  broached  the  subject. 
Mr.  B.  concluded,  by  observing,  that  he  hoped  the  gentleman 
from  Maryland  would  consent  to  modify  his  amendment  by  sub- 
stituting 30,000  dollars  for  50,000  dollars,  and  that,  in  this  form, 
it  would  prevail. 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  Barney  was  now  read  in  its  original 
form :   whereupon 

Mr.  Buchanan  moved  to  amend  it  by  striking  out  50,000 
dollars,  and  inserting,  in  lieu  thereof,  $30,000. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  that  he  had  no  wish,  in  the  motion  he 
made,  to  throw  obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  passage  of  the  bill. 
He  had  certainly  understood  the  gentleman  from  Maryland  as 
being  willing  to  modify  his  amendment  so  as  to  make  it  read 
30,000  dollars. 

Mr.  Barney  replied,  that  he  had  expressed  such  a  willing- 
ness; but  as  gentlemen  did  not  seem  agreed  respecting  the  sum 
to  be  appropriated,  he  would  modify  his  amendment  by  leaving 
the  sum  in  blank. 

Mr.  Peter  now  moved  to  fill  the  blank  with  50,000  dollars ; 
and  the  question  being  put  on  so  filling  it,  was  decided  in  the 
affirmative — Ayes  62 ;  noes  54. 


1827]  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  259 

The  amendment,  thus  modified,  having  been  adopted,  the 
residue  of  the  original  bill,  as  reported  by  the  Committee  on 
Roads  and  Canals,  was  stricken  out. 

The  Committee  of  the  Whole  then  rose,  and  reported  the  bill 
as  amended. 


In  the  House — 

Mr.  Buchanan  moved  to  strike  out  50,000  dollars,  and  insert 
30,000  dollars ;  and  on  this  question  he  asked  the  yeas  and  nays, 
which  were  ordered  by  the  House. 

Mr.  Mercer  made  some  observations  of  an  explanatory  kind, 
and  appealed  to  Mr.  Buchanan  as  to  the  propriety  of  pressing 
his  motion. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  that  consistency  and  duty  required  him 
to  make  the  motion,  and  he  could  not  withdraw  it.  He  had  stated 
again  and  again  that  he  was  friendly  to  the  road;  but  as  the 
Committee  of  Roads  and  Canals  had  asked  for  but  45,000  dollars 
for  repairs,  toll-gates,  and  toll-houses,  he  could  not  consent  to 
give  50,000  dollars  for  repairs  only.  Mr.  B.  concluded  with  the 
calculations  as  to  the  expense  of  gates  and  toll-houses,  from 
whence  he  inferred,  that,  when  that  expense  was  deducted  from 
the  45,000  dollars,  the  balance  for  repairs  could  not  be  over 
30,000  dollars. 

Mr.  Lawrence  rose  to  correct  these  calculations,  and  insisted, 
from  estimates  which  he  had  seen,  that  gates  and  houses  might  be 
erected  for  6,000  dollars.  He  opposed  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Buchanan,  and  insisted  that  50,000  dollars  was  as  small  a  sum 
as  ought  to  be  granted,  if  any  effectual  repairs  were  contem- 
plated. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Buchanan, 
by  yeas  and  nays,  as  follows : 


So  the  House  agreed  to  amend  the  amendment,  by  reducing 
the  sum  appropriated  from  50,000  to  30,000  dollars. 


260  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

TO  MR.  INGHAM.1 

Lancaster  12  July  1827. 
Dear  Sir/ 

I  received  yours  yesterday  evening  &  hasten  to  give  it  an 
immediate  answer.  With  you,  I  regret  the  publication  of  Gen: 
Jackson's  letter  to  Mr.  Beverly.  It  may  do  harm  but  cannot 
do  good.  The  conversation  which  I  held  with  the  General  will 
not  sustain  his  letter ;  although  it  may  furnish  a  sufficient  reason 
for  his  misapprehension.  My  single  purpose  was  to  ascertain 
from  him,  whether  he  had  ever  declared  he  would  appoint  Mr. 
Adams  Secretary  of  State  in  case  he  were  elected  President.  As 
to  the  propriety  &  policy  of  propounding  this  question  to  him  I 
had  reflected  much  &  had  taken  the  advice  of  a  distinguished 
Jackson  man  then  high  in  office  in  Pennsylvania.  I  had  no  doubt 
at  the  time,  that  my  question  if  answered  at  all  would  be  answered 
in  the  negative;  but  I  wished  it  to  come  from  himself  that  he 
stood  uncommitted  upon  this  subject. 

In  my  interview  with  the  General,  which  bye  the  bye  was 
on  the  street,  I  stated  the  particulars  of  a  conversation  between 
Philip  S.  Markley  &  myself — as  one  reason  why  he  should 
answer  the  question  which  I  had  propounded.  Out  of  my  repe- 
tition of  this  conversation  the  mistake  must  have  arisen.  This 
conversation  would  be  one  link  in  the  chain  of  testimony;  but 
of  itself,  it  is  altogether  incomplete. 

How  Gen :  Jackson  could  have  ever  believed  I  came  to  him 
as  an  emissary  from  Mr.  Clay  or  his  friends  to  make  a  corrupt 
bargain  with  him  in  their  behalf  I  am  at  a  loss  to  determine.  He 
could  not  have  received  this  impression  until  after  Clay  &  his 
friends  had  actually  elected  Adams  President:  and  Adams  had 
appointed  Clay  Secretary  of  State.  Although  I  continued  to  be 
upon  terms  of  the  strictest  intimacy  with  Gen :  Jackson  whilst 
he  continued  at  Washington,  &  have  corresponded  with  him 
occasionally  ever  since,  he  has  never  once  adverted  to  the  subject. 
From  the  terms  of  his  letters  to  me  I  never  could  have  suspected 
that  he  ever  for  a  moment  supposed  me  capable  of  becoming  the 
agent  in  such  a  negotiation.  The  idea  that  such  was  his  impres- 
sion never  once  flitted  across  my  mind,  until  I  received  a  letter 
from  Green  dated  the  30th  ultimo. 


1  Buchanan   Papers,  Historical   Society  of  Pennsylvania.     Also,   Curtis's 
Buchanan,  I.  51. 


1827]  FROM  GENERAL  JACKSON  261 

When  regularly  called  upon  I  need  not  tell  you  that  I  shall 
speak  the  truth.  If  the  matter  be  properly  managed  it  will  not 
injure  General  Jackson;  but  I  can  readily  conceive  that  such 
a  course  may  be  taken  in  relation  to  it  by  some  of  our  friends 
as  will  materially  injure  his  prospects. 

from  your  friend 

James  Buchanan. 
The  Hon  :  Samuel  D.  Ingham. 


FROM  GENERAL  JACKSON.1 

Hermitage  July  15th  1827. 
Dr  Sir 

You  will  see  from  the  enclosed  publication  of  Mr.  Clay  repelling  the 
statement  made  by  me  respecting  the  propositions  said  to  have  been  made 
by  his  friends  to  mine  &  to  me  &  intended  to  operate  upon  the  last 
election  for  president,  that  it  becomes  necessary  for  the  public  to  be  put  in 
possession  of  the  facts.  In  doing  this  you  are  aware  of  the  position  which 
you  occupy,  and  which  I  trust  you  will  sustain  when  properly  called  on. 
Ever  since  the  publication  and  the  enquiry  before  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives in  January  &  February  1825  questions  have  been  propounded  from 
various  sources  calculated  to  draw  from  me  the  information  I  had  upon  that 
unpleasant  subject.  Many  no  doubt  with  sinister  views  placing  me  in  selfish 
connections  with  the  facts,  from  my  accustomed  silence  have  sought  to  fortify 
the  character  of  Mr.  Clay:  But  in  a  number  of  cases  where  enquiry  seemed 
to  be  prompted  by  a  frank  &  generous  desire  to  obtain  the  truth  I  felt 
myself  bound  to  answer  in  a  corresponding  spirit;  and  accordingly  the  state- 
ment made  by  you  to  me  has  been  on  several  occasions  repeated,  as  it  was  to 
Mr.  Beverly  who  visited  me  at  my  house  where  he  found  a  number  of  his 
friends  &  relatives. 

Having  tarried  all  night,  in  the  morning  conversing  on  politics,  the 
question  so  often  put  to  me  before  was  asked  by  Mr.  Beverly.  It  was 
answered.  Mr.  B.  went  to  Nashville  &  wrote  to  his  friend  in  No.  Carolina 
who  it  appears  published  his  letter.  On  the  15th  of  May  last  he  wrote  me 
from  Louisville  requesting  to  be  informed  whether  the  statement  made  by 
him  was  correct  &  observing  that  his  letter  was  not  intended  for  publication. 
Not  having  seen  the  letter  as  published  there  was  no  safe  alternative  for 
me  but  that  adopted  of  making  the  statement  as  you  will  see  in  the  enclosed 
paper. 

I  shall  now  in  reply  to  Mr.  Clay's  appeal  give  my  authority  accom- 
panied by  the  statement  you  made  to  Major  John  H.  Eaton  &  to  Mr. 
Kreamer  &  leave  Mr.  Clay  to  his  further  enquiries.  He  cannot  be  indulged 
by  me  in  a  paper  war  or  newspaper  discussion.  Had  his  friends  not  voted 
out  Mr.  McDufne's  resolutions,  when  Mr.  Clay  threw  himself  upon  the  House 


1  Buchanan  Papers,  Historical   Society  of  Pennsylvania.     Also,   Curtis's 
Buchanan,  I.  52,  and  53-54,  where  an  extract  from  Clay's  vindication  is  given. 


262  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

the  truth  or  falsehood  of  these  statements  would  have  been  made  manifest 
&  the  public  mind  now  at  rest  upon  this  subject.  That  they  did  will 
appear,  reference  being  had  to  the  National  Journal  of  the  5th  of  February 
1825.  You  will  recollect  that  Mr.  McDuffie  moved  to  instruct  the  committee 
to  enquire  whether  the  friends  of  Mr.  Clay  have  hinted  that  they  would  fight 
for  those  who  pay  best,  &  whether  overtures  were  said  to  have  been  made 
by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Clay  offering  him  the  appointment  of  Secretary  of 
State  for  his  aid  to  elect  Mr.  Adams,  &  whether  his  friends  gave  this 
information  to  the  friends  of  Genl  Jackson  &  hinted  that  if  the  friends  of 
Jackson  would  close  zuith  them  &c.  &c.  giving  the  committee  the  power 
to  examine  on  oath. 

I  have  no  doubt  when  properly  called  on  you  will  come  forth  &  affirm 
the  statement  made  to  Major  Eaton,  then  to  Mr.  Kreamer  &  then  to  me, 
&  give  the  names  of  the  friends  of  Mr.  Clay  who  made  it  to  you. 

I  will  thank  you  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  this  letter  on  its  reaching 
you. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be  with  great  respect  yr.  mo.  obdt.  servt. 

Andrew  Jackson. 
The  Honble 

James  Buchanan  Esq. 


TO  DUFF  GREEN.1 

The  United  States  Telegraph,  July,  1827,  published,  under 
the  head  of  "  Bargain  and  Corruption,"  the  following  article : 

"  All  that  the  public  will  require  of  General  Jackson,  is,  that 
he  shall  give  the  name  of  his  distinguished  friend,  through  whom 
the  views  of  Mr.  Clay's  friends  were  communicated  to  him. 
Immediately  upon  the  receipt  of  General  Jackson's  letter  to  Mr. 
Beverley,  we  enclosed  a  copy  of  it  to  that  distinguished  member 
of  Congress,  and  received  the  following  reply : 

"  ' ,  July  16,  1827. 

"  *  Dear  Sir:  I  received  yours  of  the  30th  ultimo,  on  the 
morning  of  the  5th  instant.  In  answer  to  it,  I  can  only,  at 
present,  refer  you  to  my  answer  to  yours  of  the  12th  of  October 
last.2  I  have  a  very  distinct  recollection  of  the  only  conversation 
I  ever  held  with  General  Jackson,  concerning  the  last  presidential 
election,  prior  to  its  termination,  and  when  compelled  to  disclose 
it,  I  need  not  say,  that  I  will  speak  the  truth. 


1  The   author   of  this   letter,    as   appears   by   the    references    in   it,    was 
Buchanan,  as  was  affirmed  by  Colton,  in  his  Life  and  Times  of  Henry  Clay, 

I.  359- 

2  Supra,  p.  218. 


1827]  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1825  263 

"  '  Everything  in  this  state  Pennsylvania,  at  present,  looks 
well  for  the  general.  We  have  been  making  great  exertions  in 
his  behalf.  The  character  of  the  proposed  convention  of  states 
at  Harrisburg,  seems  now  to  be  pretty  well  understood.  I  hope 
that  nothing  may  occur  to  mar  his  prospects  here,  as  a  doubt 
about  the  vote  of  this  state,  might  have  a  serious  effect  against 
him  throughout  the  Union. 

"  '  From  your  friend, 


TO  THE  EDITOR  OF  THE  LANCASTER  JOURNAL, 

AUGUST  8,   1827.1 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Lancaster  Journal: 

The  Cincinnati  Journal  was  last  night  placed  in  my  hands 
by  a  friend,  containing  an  address  from  General  Jackson  to  the 
public,  in  which  he  announces  me  to  be  the  member  of  Congress, 
to  whom  he  had  referred,  in  his  letter  to  Mr.  Beverley,  of  the 
6th  of  June  last.  The  duty  which  I  owe  to  the  public,  and  to 
myself,  now  compels  me  to  publish  to  the  world  the  only  conver- 
sation which  I  ever  held  with  General  Jackson,  upon  the  subject 
of  the  last  presidential  election,  prior  to  its  termination. 

In  the  month  of  December,  1824,  a  short  time  after  the 
commencement  of  the  session  of  Congress,  I  heard,  among  other 
rumors  then  in  circulation,  that  General  Jackson  had  determined, 
should  he  be  elected  president,  to  continue  Mr.  Adams  secretary 
of  state.  Although  I  felt  certain  he  had  never  intimated  such 
an  intention,  yet  I  was  sensible,  that  nothing  could  be  better 
calculated,  both  to  cool  the  ardor  of  his  friends,  and  inspire  his 
enemies  with  confidence,  than  the  belief  that  he  had  already 
selected  his  chief  competitor  for  the  highest  office  within  his  gift. 
I  thought  General  Jackson  owed  it  to  himself,  and  to  the  cause 
in  which  his  political  friends  were  engaged,  to  contradict  this 
report;  and  to  declare  that  he  would  not  appoint  to  that  office 
the  man,  however  worthy  he  might  be,  who  stood  at  the  head  of 
the  most  formidable  part  of  his  political  enemies.  These  being 
my  impressions,  I  addressed  a  letter  to  a  confidential  friend  in 
Pennsylvania,  then  and  still  high  in  office,  and  exalted  in  charac- 
ter, and  one  who  had  ever  been  the  decided  advocate  of  General 


1  Reprinted  in  Colton's  Life  and  Times  of  Henry  Clay,  I.  352-355. 


264  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

Jackson's  election,  requesting  his  opinion  and  advice  upon  the 
subject.  I  received  his  answer,  dated  the  27th  of  December, 
1824,  upon  the  29th,  which  is  now  before  me,  and  which  strength- 
ened and  confirmed  my  previous  opinion.  I  then  finally  deter- 
mined, either  that  I  would  ask  General  Jackson  myself,  or  get 
another  of  his  friends  to  ask  him,  whether  he  had  ever  declared 
he  would  appoint  Mr.  Adams  his  secretary  of  state?  In  this 
manner,  I  hoped  a  contradiction  of  the  report  might  be  obtained 
from  himself,  and  that  he  might  probably  declare  it  was  not  his 
intention  to  appoint  Mr.  Adams. 

A  short  time  previous  to  the  receipt  of  the  letter,  to  which 
I  have  referred,  my  friend,  Mr.  Markley,  and  myself,  got  into 
conversation,  as  we  very  often  did,  both  before  and  after,  upon 
the  subject  of  the  presidential  election,  and  concerning  the  person 
who  would  probably  be  selected  by  General  Jackson  to  fill  the 
office  of  secretary  of  state.  I  feel  sincerely  sorry,  that  I  am 
compelled  thus  to  introduce  his  name;  but  I  do  so  with  the  less 
reluctance,  because  it  has  already,  without  any  agency  of  mine, 
found  its  way  into  the  newspapers,  in  connexion  with  this 
transaction. 

Mr.  Markley  adverted  to  the  rumor,  which  I  have  mentioned, 
and  said  it  was  calculated  to  injure  the  general.  He  observed 
that  Mr.  Clay's  friends  were  warmly  attached  to  him,  and  that 
he  thought  they  would  endeavor  to  act  in  concert  at  the  election ; 
that  if  they  did  so,  they  could  either  elect  Mr.  Adams  or  General 
Jackson,  at  their  pleasure;  but  that  many  of  them  would  never 
agree  to  vote  for  the  latter,  if  they  knew  he  had  predetermined 
to  prefer  another  to  Mr.  Clay  for  the  first  office  in  his  gift;  and 
that  some  of  the  friends  of  Mr.  Adams  had  already  been  holding 
out  the  idea,  that,  in  case  he  were  elected,  Mr.  Clay  might 
probably  be  offered  the  situation  of  secretary  of  state. 

I  told  Mr.  Markley,  that  I  felt  confident  General  Jackson 
had  never  said  he  would  appoint  Mr.  Adams  secretary  of  state, 
because  he  was  not  in  the  habit  of  conversing  upon  the  subject 
of  the  election;  and  if  he  were,  whatever  might  be  his  secret 
intention,  he  had  more  prudence  than  to  make  such  a  declaration. 
I  mentioned  to  him,  that  I  had  been  thinking,  either  that  I  would 
call  upon  the  general  myself,  or  get  one  of  his  other  friends 
to  do  so,  and  thus  endeavor  to  obtain  from  him  a  contradiction 
of  the  report,  although  I  doubted  whether  he  would  hold  any 
conversation  upon  the  subject. 

Mr.  Markley  urged  me  to  do  so;   and  observed,  if  General 


1827]  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1825  265 

Jackson  had  not  determined  whom  he  would  appoint  secretary 
of  state,  and  should  say  that  it  would  not  be  Mr.  Adams,  it  might 
be  of  great  advantage  to  our  cause  for  us  so  to  declare,  upon  his 
own  authority.  We  should  then  be  placed  upon  the  same  footing 
with  the  Adams  men,  and  might  fight  them  with  their  own 
weapons.  That  the  western  members  would  naturally  prefer 
voting  for  a  western  man,  if  there  were  a  probability  that  the 
claims  of  Mr.  Clay  to  the  second  office  in  the  government  should 
be  fairly  estimated ;  and  that,  if  they  thought  proper  to  vote  for 
General  Jackson,  they  could  soon  decide  the  contest  in  his  favor. 

A  short  time  after  this  conversation,  on  the  30th  of  Decem- 
ber, 1824  (I  am  able  to  fix  the  time,  not  only  from  my  own 
recollection,  but  from  letters  which  I  wrote  on  that  day,  on  the 
day  following,  and  on  the  2d  of  January,  1825),  I  called  upon 
General  Jackson.  After  the  company  had  left  him,  by  which 
I  found  him  surrounded,  he  asked  me  to  take  a  walk  with  him ; 
and,  while  we  were  walking  together  upon  the  street,  I  intro- 
duced the  subject.  I  told  him  I  wished  to  ask  him  a  question 
in  relation  to  the  presidential  election;  that  I  knew  he  was  un- 
willing to  converse  upon  the  subject;  that,  therefore,  if  he 
deemed  the  question  improper,  he  might  refuse  to  give  it  an 
answer;  that  my  only  motive  in  asking  it,  was  friendship  for 
him,  and  I  trusted  he  would  excuse  me  for  thus  introducing  a 
subject  about  which  I  knew  he  wished  to  be  silent. 

His  reply  was  complimentary  to  myself,  and  accompanied 
with  a  request,  that  I  would  proceed.  I  then  stated  to  him,  there 
was  a  report  in  circulation,  that  he  had  determined  he  would 
appoint  Mr.  Adams  secretary  of  state,  in  case  he  were  elected 
president,  and  that  I  wished  to  ascertain  from  him,  whether  he 
had  ever  intimated  such  an  intention;  that  he  must  at  once  per- 
ceive how  injurious  to  his  election  such  a  report  might  be;  that 
no  doubt  there  were  several  able  and  ambitious  men  in  the  coun- 
try, among  whom  I  thought  Mr.  Clay  might  be  included,  who 
were  aspiring  to  that  office;  and,  if  it  were  believed  he  had 
already  determined  to  appoint  his  chief  competitor,  it  might  have 
a  most  unhappy  effect  upon  their  exertions,  and  those  of  their 
friends ;  that,  unless  he  had  so  determined,  I  thought  this  report 
should  be  promptly  contradicted  under  his  own  authority. 

I  mentioned  it  had  already  probably  done  him  some  injury, 
and  proceeded  to  relate  to  him  the  substance  of  the  conversation 
I  had  held  with  Mr.  Markley.  I  do  not  remember,  whether  I 
mentioned  his  name,  or  merely  described  him  as  a  friend  of  Mr. 


266  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

Clay.  After  I  had  finished,  the  general  declared,  he  had  not 
the  least  objection  to  answer  my  question;  that  he  thought  well 
of  Mi*.  Adams,  but  had  never  said,  or  intimated,  that  he  would, 
or  would  not,  appoint  him  secretary  of  state;  that  these  were 
secrets  he  would  keep  to  himself — he  would  conceal  them  from 
the  very  hairs  of  his  head ;  that  if  he  believed  his  right  hand  then 
knew  what  his  left  would  do  on  the  subject  of  appointments  to 
office,  he  would  cut  it  off,  and  cast  it  into  the  fire;  that  if  he 
should  ever  be  elected  president,  it  would  be  without  solicitation, 
and  without  intrigue,  on  his  part;  that  he  would  then  go  into 
office  perfectly  free  and  untrammelled,  and  would  be  left  at  per- 
fect liberty  to  fill  the  offices  of  the  government  with  the  men, 
whom,  at  the  time,  he  believed  to  be  the  ablest  and  the  best  in 
the  country. 

I  told  him,  that  this  answer  to  my  question  was  such  a  one 
as  I  had  expected  to  receive,  if  he  answered  it  at  all;  and  that 
I  had  not  sought  to  obtain  it  for  my  own  satisfaction.  I  then 
asked  him,  if  I  were  at  liberty  to  repeat  his  answer?  He  said, 
I  was  at  perfect  liberty  to  do  so,  to  any  person  I  thought  proper. 
I  need  scarcely  remark,  that  I  afterward  availed  myself  of  the 
privilege.  The  conversation  upon  this  topic  here  ended,  and  in 
all  our  intercourse  since,  whether  personally,  or  in  the  course  of 
our  correspondence,  General  Jackson  never  once  adverted  to  the 
subject,  prior  to  the  date  of  his  letter  to  Mr.  Beverley. 

I  do  not  recollect,  that  General  Jackson  told  me  I  might 
repeat  his  answer  to  Mr.  Clay  and  his  friends;  though  I  should 
be  sorry  to  say  he  did  not.  The  whole  conversation  being  upon 
a  public  street,  it  might  have  escaped  my  observation. 

A  few  remarks,  and  I  trust  I  shall  have  done  with  this  dis- 
agreeable business  forever. 

I  called  upon  General  Jackson,  upon  the  occasion  which  I 
have  mentioned,  solely  as  his  friend,  upon  my  individual  responsi- 
bility, and  not  as  the  agent  of  Mr.  Clay  or  any  other  person.  I 
never  have  been  the  political  friend  of  Mr.  Clay,  since  he  became 
a  candidate  for  the  office  of  president,  as  you  very  well  know. 
Until  I  saw  General  Jackson's  letter  to  Mr.  Beverley,  of  the 
6th  ult.,  and  at  the  same  time  was  informed  by  a  letter  from  the 
editor  of  the  United  States  Telegraph,  that  I  was  the  person  to 
whom  he  alluded,  the  conception  never  once  entered  my  head, 
that  he  believed  me  to  be  the  agent  of  Mr.  Clay,  or  of  his  friends, 
or  that  I  had  intended  to  propose  to  him  terms  of  any  kind  from 
them,  or  that  he  could  have  supposed  me  to  be  capable  of  express- 


1827]  PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1825  267 

ing  "  the  opinion  that  it  was  right  to  fight  such  intriguers  with 
their  own  weapons."  Such  a  supposition,  had  I  entertained  it, 
would  have  rendered  me  exceedingly  unhappy,  as  there  is  no  man 
upon  earth,  whose  good  opinion  I  more  valued,  than  that  of 
General  Jackson.  He  could  not,  I  think,  have  received  this  im- 
pression, until  after  Mr.  Clay  and  his  friends  had  actually 
elected  Mr.  Adams  president,  and  Mr.  Adams  had  appointed 
Mr.  Clay  secretary  of  state.  After  these  events  had  transpired, 
it  may  be  readily  conjectured,  in  what  manner  my  communication 
might  have  led  him  into  the  mistake.  I  deeply  deplore,  that  such 
has  been  the  effect. 

I  owe  it  to  my  own  character  to  make  another  observation. 
Had  I  ever  known,  or  even  suspected,  that  General  Jackson  believed 
I  had  been  sent  to  him  by  Mr.  Clay  or  his  friends,  I  should  imme- 
diately have  corrected  his  erroneous  impression;  and  thus  pre- 
vented the  necessity  for  this  most  unpleasant  explanation.  When 
the  editor  of  the  United  States  Telegraph,  on  the  12th  of  October 
last,  asked  me  by  letter  for  information  upon  this  subject,  I 
promptly  informed  him  by  the  returning  mail,  on  the  i6th  of 
that  month,  that  I  had  no  authority  from  Mr.  Clay,  or  his  friends, 
to  propose  any  terms  to  General  Jackson,  in  relation  to  their  votes, 
nor  did  I  ever  make  any  such  proposition;  and  that  I  trusted 
I  would  be  as  incapable  of  becoming  a  messenger  upon  such  an 
occasion,  as  it  was  known  General  Jackson  would  be  to  receive 
such  a  message.  I  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  make  this  state- 
ment, in  order  to  remove  any  misconception,  which  may  have 
been  occasioned  by  the  publication  in  the  Telegraph,  of  my  letter 
to  the  editor,  dated  the  nth  ultimo. 

With  another  remark  I  shall  close  this  communication.  Be- 
fore I  held  the  conversation  with  General  Jackson,  which  I  have 
detailed,  I  called  upon  Major  Eaton,  and  requested  him  to  ask 
General  Jackson,  whether  he  had  ever  declared,  or  intimated, 
that  he  would  appoint  Mr.  Adams  secretary  of  state,  and  ex- 
pressed a  desire  that  the  general  should  say,  if  consistent  with  the 
truth,  that  he  did  not  intend  to  appoint  him  to  that  office.  I  be- 
lieved, that  such  a  declaration  would  have  a  happy  influence  upon 
the  election,  and  I  endeavored  to  convince  him,  that  such  would 
be  the  effect.  The  conversation  between  us  was  not  so  full, 
as  that  with  General  Jackson.  The  major  politely  declined  to 
comply  with  my  request,  and  advised  me  to  propound  the  question 
to  the  general  myself,  as  I  possessed  a  full  share  of  his  confidence. 

James  Buchanan. 
Lancaster,  8th  August,  1827. 


THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

TO  MR.  INGHAM.1 

Lancaster  9  August  1827. 
Dear  Sir/ 

Ere  this  can  reach  you — you  will  have  seen  General  Jack- 
son's letter  to  the  Public  in  which  he  has  given  up  my  name.  It 
will  at  once  strike  you  to  be  a  most  extraordinary  production  so 
far  as  I  am  concerned.  My  statement  will  appear  in  the  Lan- 
caster Journal  tomorrow  which  I  shall  send  you.  I  have  not 
suffered  my  feelings  to  get  the  better  of  my  judgment  but  have 
stated  the  truth  in  a  calm  &  temperate  manner.  If  General  Jack- 
son &  our  editors  should  act  with  discretion  the  storm  may  blow 
over  without  injury.'  Should  they  on  the  contrary  force  me 
to  the  wall  &  make  it  absolutely  necessary  for  the  preservation 
of  my  own  character  to  defend  myself,  I  know  not  what  may 
be  the  consequence. 

I  have  stated  the  conversation  between  Markley  &  myself 
in  as  strong  terms  as  the  truth  would  justify;  but  no  stronger. 
It  is  in  your  power  to  do  much  to  give  this  matter  a  proper  direc- 
tion. Indeed  I  would  suggest  to  you  the  propriety  of  an  imme- 
diate visit  to  Philadelphia  for  that  purpose.  My  friends  here  are 
very  indignant  but  I  believe  I  can  keep  them  right. 

You  will  perceive  that  General  Jackson  has  cited  Mr.  Eaton 
as  a  witness.  I  have  treated  this  part  of  his  letter  with  great 
mildness.  In  a  letter  to  me  which  I  received  the  day  before  yes- 
terday— the  General  intimates  that  George  Kremer  would  confirm 
his  statement.  This  letter  is  an  imprudent  &  in  my  opinion 
an  improper  one.  It  is  well  it  has  fallen  into  the  hands  of  a 
political  friend. 

You  will  discover  that  your  knowledge  concerning  my  con- 
versation with  General  Jackson  was  nearly  correct.  The  friend 
who  wrote  me  the  letter  of  the  2.J  Dec:  1824  referred  to  in  my 
communication  was  Judge  Rogers — then  Secretary  of  State  [of 
Pennsylvania]. 

from  your  sincere  friend 

James  Buchanan. 

Samuel  D.  Ingham  Esq. 


1  Buchanan   Papers,   Historical   Society  of  Pennsylvania.     Also,   Curtis's 
Buchanan,  I.  54. 


1827]  TO  GENERAL  JACKSON  269 

TO  GENERAL  JACKSON.1 

Lancaster   io  August   1827. 
Dear  Sir, 

I  received  your  letter  of  the  15th  ultimo  on  Tuesday  last. 
Your  address  to  the  Public  also  reached  me  upon  the  same  day 
in  the  Cincinatti  Advertiser.  This  communication  made  it  neces- 
sary for  me  to  publish  in  detail  the  conversation  which  I  held 
with  you,  concerning  the  Presidential  election  on  the  30  Decem- 
ber 1824.  I  shall  enclose  to  you  in  this  letter  that  part  of  the 
Lancaster  Journal  containing  it. 

I  regret  beyond  expression  that  you  believed  me  to  be  an 
emissary  from  Mr.  Clay.  Since  some  time  before  the  first  Har- 
risburg  Convention  which  nominated  you,  I  have  ever  been  your 
ardent,  decided,  and  perhaps  without  vanity  I  may  say,  your 
efficient  friend.  Every  person  in  this  part  of  the  state  of  Penn- 
sylvania is  well  acquainted  with  the  fact.  It  is  therefore  to  me  a 
matter  of  the  deepest  regret  that  you  should  have  supposed  me 
to  be  "  the  friend  of  Mr.  Clay."  Had  I  ever  entertained  a  sus- 
picion that  such  was  your  belief,  I  should  have  immediately  cor- 
rected your  impression. 

I  shall  annex  to  this  letter  a  copy  of  that  which  I  wrote  to 
Duff  Green,  on  the  16th  October  last.2  The  person  whom  I  con- 
sulted in  Pennsylvania  was  the  present  Judge  Rogers  of  the 
Supreme  Court — then  the  Secretary  of  State  of  this  Common- 
wealth. 

The  friends  of  the  administration  are  making  great  efforts 
in  Pennsylvania.  We  have  been  busily  engaged  during  the  sum- 
mer in  counteracting  them.  Success  has  I  think  hitherto  attended 
our  efforts.  I  do  not  fear  the  vote  of  the  State,  although  it  is 
believed  every  member  of  the  State  administration,  except  Gen- 
eral Bernard  is  hostile  to  your  election.  Your  security  will  be 
in  the  gratitude  in  the  hearts  of  the  people. 

Please  to  present  my  best  respects  to  Mrs.  Jackson  and 
believe  me  to  be  very 

respectfully  your  friend  &c 

James  Buchanan. 
General  Andrew  Jackson. 


1  Jackson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress.    Imperfectly  printed  in  Curtis's 
Buchanan,  I.  55. 

2  Supra,  p.  218. 


270  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

FROM    DUFF  GREEN.1 

Washington  nth  August  1827. 
Dear  Sir 

I  take  the  liberty  to  enclose  you  a  letter  from  a  gentleman  of  the  first 
respectability  at  Lexington,  Ky.  which  you  will  please  to  keep  &  return.  This 
letter  is  sent  you  as  an  evidence  of  the  friendly  feeling  which  runs  through 
the  whole  body  of  Gen.  Jackson's  friends.  Several  letters  speak  in  much 
the  same  terms. 

Surrounded  as  you  will  be  by  the  important  consequences  which  must 
grow  out  of  your  letter  you  will  excuse  the  solicitude  I  feel  and  the  motive 
which  prompts  the  liberty  I  have  taken.  Please  to  consider  this  letter  as 
strictly  confidential. 

Your  friend 

D.  Green. 

Your  letter  was  published  in  order  to  produce  the  effect  which  I  find  it 
has  produced  upon  the  elections  in  Kentucky.  I  foresaw  the  importance  of 
it  and  took  the  liberty  so  to  use  it.  Your  name  was  announced  for  the  same 
reason. 


TO   DUFF  GREEN.1 

Lancaster  17  August  1827. 
Dear  Sir/ 

I  have  received  yours  of  the  11  Instant  enclosing  me  the 
letter  of  Mr.  Richardson  of  Kentucky.  I  shall  keep  this  letter 
according  to  your  request  until  I  see  you  &  then  return  it;  or  if 
you  so  desire  I  will  send  it  by  Mail. 

I  felt  hurt  at  your  publication  of  my  private  letter,  nor  can 
I  approve  the  reasons  which  you  have  given  for  it  in  your  last. 

I  was  pleased  with  your  remarks  in  the  last  Telegraph  upon 
the  subject  of  my  letter  to  the  Editor  of  the  Lancaster  Journal. 
They  were  written  with  much  ability,  &  generally  speaking,  con- 
tain my  own  sentiments.  I  am  glad  you  have  given  so  good  a 
direction  to  the  subject;  &  I  trust  the  course  which  you  have 
so  clearly  indicated  may  be  followed  by  our  Editors  generally. 

You  say,  "  it  is  whispered  that  the  Coalition  have  thrown 
open  their  arms  widely  &  hope  to  entice  Mr.  Buchanan  to  rush 
into  their  embrace.     This  he  will  not  do." 

You  were  fully  justified  in  the  last  sentence  of  this  remark. 
-No  combination  of  circumstances  can  ever  exist  which  will  induce 
me  to  support  Mr.  Adams  for  the  office  of  President.     It  may 


1  Buchanan  Papers,  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania. 


1827]  REMARKS  ON  PROTECTION  271 

become  necessary  in  self  defence  for  me  again  to  appear  before 
the  Public,  should  General  Jackson  or  Major  Eaton  reply  to  my 
statement.  Nothing  but  necessity  shall  compel  me  to  do  so.  In 
that  event  it  is  possible  the  cause  of  Gen:  Jackson  may  be  in- 
jured: otherwise  the  present  storm  will  blow  over  without 
materially  affecting  it. 

I  need  not  inform  you  this  letter  is  not  intended  for  publi- 
cation.    From  yr.  obedient  servant 

James  Buchanan. 
General  Duff  Green. 


REMARKS,  DECEMBER  31,  1827, 
on  the  protection  of  domestic  manufactures.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  as  my  colleagues  [Mr.  Stevenson  and 
Mr.  Stewart]  have  expressed  opinions  directly  at  variance  with 
each  other,  I  shall  state  my  reasons  for  the  vote  which  I  intend 
to  give.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  New  York  [Mr.  Oakley] ;  not  because  it  varies  in 
principle  from  the  resolution  reported  by  the  Committee  of  Manu- 
factures, but  because  it  expresses  more  fully  and  distinctly  the 
objects  which  that  committee  had  in  view. 

It  has  been  stated  and  urged  by  gentlemen,  in  this  debate, 
that  the  vote  which  may  be  given  in  favor  of  the  resolution,  ought 
to  be  considered  as  a  vote  against  the  policy  of  protecting  domes- 
tic manufactures.  I  protest  against  any  such  inference.  It  is 
at  war  with  the  fact.  It  assumes  the  principle,  that,  because  the 
friends  of  the  resolution  wish  to  cast  all  the  light  which  can  be 
shed  upon  the  subject — because  they  wish  to  act  with  knowledge 
and  deliberation — that,  therefore,  they  are  opposed  to  the  pro- 
tection of  domestic  manufactures.  It  assumes  the  position  that 
the  desire  to  obtain  information  concerning  a  measure,  necessarily 
pre-supposes  hostility  to  it.  This  is  a  singular  mode  of  argu- 
ment.    I  feel  confident,  that,  when  the  House  shall  have  acquired 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  1,  pp.  875-877. 
A  resolution  having  been  reported  that  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  be 
empowered  "  to  send  for  persons  and  papers,"  Mr.  Oakley  proposed  to  amend 
it  by  adding  the  words  "  with  a  view  to  ascertain  and  report  to  the  House 
such  facts  as  may  be  useful  to  guide  the  judgment  of  this  House  in  relation 
to  a  revision  of  the  tariff  duties  on  imported  goods."     (Id.  862,  868.) 


272  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1827 

a  knowledge  of  all  the  facts — and  when  they  shall  be  spread 
before  the  nation,  in  an  authentic  form,  we  shall  pass  a  bill  much 
more  satisfactory  to  ourselves  and  to  our  country,  than  we  can 
do  without  the  information. 

But,  it  has  been  stated  that  the  delay  which  must  follow  the 
adoption  of  this  resolution,  will  defeat  the  bill,  at  the  present 
session.  I  have  been  astonished  to  hear  this  argument  urged, 
after  the  explicit  declaration  of  the  Committee  of  Domestic 
Manufactures.  One  of  its  members  [Mr.  Stevenson]  has 
solemnly  declared,  that  delay  has  not  been  the  object,  nor  will 
it  be  the  effect  of  the  measure.  They  have  determined  to  report 
a  bill  during  the  next  month,  and  hope  they  will  be  enabled  to  do 
so,  some  time  before  its  close.  After  such  a  declaration  upon 
this  floor,  will  any  gentleman  again  repeat,  that  the  intention  of 
the  majority  of  the  committee  is  delay?  I  trust  not.  Upon  the 
ground  of  delay,  therefore,  there  is  no  reason  for  voting  against 
this  resolution.  Much  as  I  desire  more  information  concerning 
the  manufacture  of  woollens,  if  I  could,  for  one  moment,  believe, 
that  the  passage  of  this  resolution  would  prevent  us  from  acting 
efficiently  upon  the  tariff,  during  the  present  session,  I  should  vote 
in  the  negative.     I  apprehend  no  such  result. 

Gentlemen  have  argued,  that  the  power  to  send  for  persons 
to  testify,  which  the  respectable  Committee  of  Manufactures  de- 
sire to  obtain  from  the  House,  is  dangerous  and  unprecedented. 
What  a  mere  bug-bear  is  this  argument !  If  two  of  your  citizens 
engage  in  litigation,  no  matter  how  contemptible  the  subject  in 
dispute  may  be,  your  laws  will  compel  the  attendance  of  wit- 
nesses, whatever  may  be  the  individual  sacrifice.  Justice  must 
be  done  between  them.  And  shall  it  be  said,  that,  when  a  meas- 
ure, deeply  affecting  the  interest  of  every  man  in  the  United 
States,  is  before  the  Representatives  of  the  People,  that  it  is  the 
exercise  of  extraordinary  power,  to  compel  the  attendance  of  wit- 
nesses who  can  give  us  practical  information  upon  the  subject? 
This  power  has  never  before  been  questioned,  since  I  have  been 
a  member  of  this  House. 

For  my  own  part,  I  am  a  sincere  friend  to  the  Tariff,  and  have 
no  doubt  that  the  manufacture  of  woollens  requires  additional 
protection :  the  great  question  is,  in  what  degree  ?  We  must  know 
the  extent  of  the  evil,  before  we  can  proportion  the  remedy  to 
it.  Upon  this  subject,  my  principles  have  never  changed.  I  have 
ever  been  in  favor  of  affording  such  protection  to  our  domestic 
manufactures,  as  will  enable  them  to  enter  into  fair  and  success- 


1827]  REMARKS  ON  PROTECTION  273 

ful  competition  with  foreign  manufactures,  in  our  domestic  mar- 
kets. If  you  go  beyond  this  point,  you  reach  prohibition;  and 
thus  afford  an  unnecessary  and  unjust  protection  to  the  manufac- 
turer, at  the  expense  of  the  consumer.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
you  fall  short  of  it,  you  disappoint  the  just  hopes  of  the  manu- 
facturer, and  withdraw  from  him  the  foundation  on  which  he 
has  a  right  to  expect  that  he  shall  stand.  It  is  not  easy  to  deter- 
mine the  precise  point  to  which  we  ought  to  go.  To  err  on  the 
one  side,  will  injure  the  manufacturer — to  err  on  the  other,  will 
injure  the  consumer.  The  woollen  manufacturers  themselves 
differ,  as  to  the  degree  of  protection  necessary.  How,  then,  can 
we  decide  between  them,  without  calling  them  before  us,  and 
ascertaining  the  facts  upon  which  their  respective  opinions  rest? 
My  colleague  [Mr.  Stewart]  may  know  the  precise  degree  of 
protection  necessary.  I  confess  I  do  not.  Even  the  Committee 
of  Domestic  Manufactures  are  in  the  dark  upon  this  subject. 

Who  are  the  manufacturers,  that  we  dare  not  approach  them  ? 
Shall  we  be  so  careful  of  their  accommodation,  that  we  must  act 
blindly,  rather  than  send  for  them  to  give  us  information  ?  Shall 
we  run  the  risk  of  injuriously  affecting  the  agricultural  interest, 
and  all  the  other  interests  of  the  country,  rather  than  send  for 
a  few  of  those  gentlemen  who  are  our  petitioners,  to  inform  us 
as  to  the  degree  of  protection  which  their  establishments  require? 
This  would  be  ill-timed  and  injudicious  kindness.  If  we  send 
for  them,  their  expenses  must  be  paid  by  the  House.  It  certainly 
cannot  be  a  very  grievous  matter  for  them  to  spend  a  few  days 
here,  during  the  fashionable  season,  at  the  public  expense,  when 
so  many  of  our  citizens  visit  Washington  voluntarily,  at  their 
own  private  cost. 

I  confess  I  did  not  understand  by  what  authority  my  col- 
league [Mr.  Stewart]  undertook  to  propound  the  questions  which 
he  has  done  to  the  Committee  of  Manufactures.  They  are  not 
now  upon  their  trial.  They  are  not  bound  to  answer  such  inter- 
rogatories. They  have  exposed  their  reasons  for  making  this  re- 
quest before  you,  and  they  merely  wish  to  obtain  your  advice 
upon  the  subject.  They  will  rest  satisfied  with  whatever  may  be 
your  determination. 

Before  I  sit  down,  I  must  say,  I  am  glad  that  my  colleague 
[Mr.  Stewart]  and  myself  at  length  agree  upon  the  articles  proper 
to  be  embraced  in  the  Tariff.  The  abortive  attempt  which  he 
made  to  amend  this  resolution,  shews,  that  he  is  now  willing  to 
protect  other  interests  besides  those  contained  in  the  Woollen  Bill 

18 


274  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

of  the  last  Session.  Since  that  period,  new  light,  from  some 
quarter,  has  beamed  upon  his  mind ;  and  who  can,  therefore,  tell, 
but  that  the  information  sought  to  be  obtained  by  this  resolution, 
may  illumine  the  minds  of  others?  At  the  last  Session,  when 
I  proposed  to  include  in  the  Woollen  Bill  several  of  the  articles 
enumerated  in  the  amendment  which  that  gentleman  has  this  day 
offered,  he  voted  for  the  previous  question,  which  was  carried; 
and  thus  my  purpose  was  defeated. 

Mr.  Buchanan  here  yielded  the  floor  to  Mr.  Stewart. 

Mr.  Stewart  rose  to  explain.  He  had,  at  the  last  session, 
voted  for  every  proposition  the  object  of  which  was  to  protect 
either  manufactures  or  agriculture.  He  had  never  voted  against 
a  Tariff  question,  and  never  would.  He  had  never  voted  against 
a  single  proposition  in  any  shape,  which,  in  his  judgment,  was 
calculated  to  protect  domestic  industry.  He  had  voted  for  the 
woollens  bill  of  last  session,  not  as  being  all  that  he  wished,  but 
as  being  all  that  he  could  get — and  on  this  ground  only. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  I  cannot  be  mistaken  in  the  fact,  that 
the  gentleman  [Mr.  Stewart]  did  vote  for  the  previous  question, 
upon  the  occasion  to  which  I  have  referred.  It  will  be  for  the 
House  and  the  country  to  decide,  whether  the  explanation  of  that 
vote  which  he  has  now  given,  be  satisfactory  or  not. 


1828. 
REMARKS  AND    MOTION,  JANUARY  14,  1828, 

IN  RELATION  TO  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  rose,  and  said,  that  it  would  be  recollected 
by  many  gentlemen  upon  this  floor,  that,  at  the  last  session  of 
Congress,  when  the  bill  for  the  preservation  and  repair  of  the 
Cumberland  Road,  which  provided  for  the  erection  of  toll-gates 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  States  through  which  it  passes,  was 
before  the  House,  the  session  was  so  far  advanced,  that  time  did 
not  remain  to  discuss  and  settle  the  important  principles  which  it 
contained.  Some  days  after  that  bill  had  been  reported,  I  pre- 
sented an  amendment  to  it,  which  I  gave  notice  I  intended  to 
offer,  when  it  should  come  before  the  House  for  discussion.  This 
amendment  provided  for  the  retrocession  of  the  road  to  the  States 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  I,  pp.  1004- 
1005. 


1828]  COURT  MARTIAL  AT  MOBILE  275 

through  which  it  passes,  upon  condition  that  they  should  keep 
it  in  repair,  and  exact  no  more  toll  upon  it  than  might  be  necessary 
for  that  purpose. 

As  the  Cumberland  Road  then  required  immediate  repairs, 
there  was  a  general  understanding  throughout  the  House,  that 
a  simple  appropriation  should  pass  for  that  purpose ;  and  that  the 
decision  of  the  question  which  would  have  arisen  upon  the  bill,  as 
reported,  and  upon  the  amendment  which  I  had  proposed,  should 
be  postponed  until  the  present  session.  The  same  bill  for  the 
erection  of  toll-gates  under  the  authority  of  Congress,  which 
had  been  reported  by  the  Committee  of  Roads  and  Canals,  at  the 
last  session,  has  been  again  reported,  at  this  Session,  by  the  Com- 
mittee. For  the  purpose  of  bringing  the  whole  subject  fairly 
before  the  House,  and  of  preventing  any  unnecessary  delay,  I, 
therefore,  again  present  the  amendment  which  I  intended  to  offer, 
at  the  last  session,  and  move  that  it  may  be  printed ;  and  I  give 
notice  that  I  shall  offer  it,  when  the  bill  for  the  preservation  and 
repair  of  the  Cumberland  Road  shall  come  before  the  House. 

Mr.  Buchanan  submitted  to  the  House  a  paper  containing 
an  amendment  to  the  bill  for  the  preservation  and  repair  of  the 
Cumberland  Road;  which  was  ordered  to  be  printed,  and  will 
be  taken  into  consideration  when  that  bill  comes  before  the  House. 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  16,  1828, 

ON  A  RESOLUTION  AS  TO  THE  COURT  MARTIAL    HELD  AT  MOBILE, 

DECEMBER  5,  18 14,  FOR  THE  TRIAL  OF  CERTAIN 

TENNESSEE  MILITIAMEN.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  had  an  amendment  to  offer  to  the 
resolution,  which  would  afford  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky 
[Mr.  Wickliffe]  time  to  examine  and  understand  it,  in  its  present 
form,  as  it  had  been  modified  by  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr. 
Sloane.]  He  was  pleased  that  such  a  resolution  had  been  moved, 
because  the  subject  had  already  excited  much  public  interest; 
indeed,  it  had  attracted  the  attention  of  the  whole  nation.  He 
wished  to  have  presented  before  the  American  People  the  docu- 
ments, and  all  the  documents,  which  related  to  this  transaction. 

It  would  seem,  from  the  terms  of  the  resolution,  in  its  orig- 
inal form,  that  its  intention  was  rather  to  implicate  the  then 


Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  1,  pp.  1031- 
1032. 


276  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

Governor  of  Tennessee  than  the  distinguished  individual  who  was 
now  so  conspicuously  within  the  public  view.  Even  in  its  present 
modified  state,  it  does  not  embrace  all  the  documents  which  it  is 
proper  we  should  obtain.  The  People  of  this  country  feel  a  deep 
interest  in  every  thing  which  relates  to  the  character  and  conduct 
of  that  individual.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  that  the  whole 
case  should  be  brought  before  this  House,  and  the  public.  [He 
then  moved  an  amendment,  which  called  for  a  copy  of  the  order 
issued  by  Governor  Blount  to  General  Jackson.] 

Mr.  B.  said,  he  would  state  his  reason  for  this  motion.  He 
had  observed  in  the  public  papers,  some  time  ago,  a  copy  of  the 
order  issued  by  Governor  Blount  to  General  Jackson,  in  May, 
1 814.  If  this  copy  were  authentic — and  he  had  no  reason  to 
doubt  its  authenticity — it  would  cast  a  blaze  of  light  upon  the 
subject.  If  any  person  could,  by  possibility,  be  implicated,  it 
would  be  Gov.  Blount,  and  not  General  Jackson. 

In  that  order,  the  Governor  explicitly  declares,  that  it  was 
issued  in  compliance  with  the  requisition  of  Major  General  Pinck- 
ney.  It  commanded  General  Jackson  to  order  out  one  thousand 
men  of  the  second  division  of  Tennessee  militia,  for  the  term  of 
six  months,  unless  they  should  be  sooner  discharged  by  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States.  And  it  declared,  that  this  latitude, 
in  relation  to  the  call,  had  been  given  by  instructions  from  the 
War  Department.  It  will  be  recollected,  that  General  Jackson 
was,  at  that  time,  an  officer  in  the  militia,  and  not  of  the  regular 
army.  He  was  bound  to  obey  this  order  of  the  Governor  of  his 
own  State;  and  it  could  never  have  occurred  to  him  to  inquire 
whether  that  officer  had  lawful  authority  to  issue  it,  especially 
when  upon  its  face,  it  contained  an  express  recital  of  such  author- 
ity. If  this  order  did  issue,  it  will  shew  conclusively  that,  if 
there  be  any  question  in  the  case,  it  has  an  immediate  bearing 
upon  Gov.  Blount,  and  not  upon  General  Jackson.  Mr.  B. 
wished  to  have  a  copy  of  this  order.  No  doubt  the  Governor 
had  transmitted  it  to  the  War  Department,  under  whose  authority 
he  had  been  acting.  Mr.  B.  concluded  by  expressing  a  hope  that 
the  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Sloane]  would  accept  his  amend- 
ment as  a  modification  of  the  resolution. 


1828]  RETRENCHMENT  277 

REMARKS,  JANUARY  23,  1828, 

ON  RETRENCHMENT.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  could  not  concur  in  opinion  with  the 
gentleman  from  Maryland  [Mr.  Barney]  that  no  necessity  for 
reform  existed  at  the  present  time.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe 
it  is  necessary  that  all  the  public  expenditures  should  be  subjected 
to  a  most  rigid  examination.  That  abuses  do  exist,  which  ought 
to  be  remedied,  I  do  not  entertain  a  particle  of  doubt.  Whilst 
this  is  my  deliberate  conviction,  I  entirely  concur  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Virginia  [Mr.  Randolph]  that  this  is  not  the  proper 
period  for  reform.  Our  duty  at  present,  is,  to  transact  the  neces- 
sary public  business  of  the  country,  and  to  go  home  as  soon  as 
we  can.  I  will  say,  however,  to  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky 
[Mr.  Chilton]  that  whoever  shall  undertake  the  work  of  reform, 
cannot  accomplish  his  purpose  by  such  a  resolution  as  that  now 
before  the  House.  He  must  go  to  work  systematically.  He 
must  patiently  and  laboriously  ferret  out  one  abuse  after  the 
other,  himself,  instead  of  imposing  that  labor  upon  others.  Such 
a  task  cannot  be  performed  by  referring  a  general — an  unlimited 
and  undefined  resolution  to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means, 
at  this  period,  when,  I  trust,  half  the  session  has  elapsed. 

I  should  not  have  risen,  upon  the  present  occasion,  to  say  one 
word,  did  I  not  believe  that  the  duty  which  I  owe  to  the  Fifth 
Auditor  of  the  Treasury  imperiously  demands  of  me  to  make 
an  explanation  of  the  duties  which  that  officer  performs.  The 
gentleman  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Chilton]  never  could  have  inves- 
tigated the  subject,  when  he  informed  the  House,  that  office  had 
been  created  for  purposes  which  no  longer  exist.  This  office 
was  created  in  March,  1817.  Its  duties  originally  consisted  in 
auditing  and  settling  all  the  accounts  connected  with  the  De- 
partment of  State.  These  duties  embraced  all  the  accounts  relat- 
ing to  our  intercourse  with  foreign  nations.  Since  this  office  was 
created,  those  duties  must  have  been  doubled.  The  independence 
of  South  America  has  since  given  birth  to  a  new  swarm  of 
Foreign  Ministers,  Diplomatic  Agents,  and  Consuls  along  the 
shores  both  of  the  Southern  Atlantic  and  Pacific  ocean.  Their 
accounts  must  all  be  audited  by  this  officer. 

The  same  observation  is  applicable  to  the  accounts  of  the 
Post  Office  Department.     This  officer  is  the  Auditor  of  all  the 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  1,  pp.  1088- 
1090. 


278  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

accounts  of  all  the  Post  Masters,  and  all  the  Mail  Contractors, 
in  the  United  States.  The  new  energy  infused  into  this  De- 
partment, by  the  excellent  officer  now  at  its  head,  has  greatly 
extended  the  duties  of  the  Fifth  Auditor.  This,  however,  is  far 
from  being  the  aggregate  of  his  services.  He  has  been  made  a 
kind  of  residuary  legatee,  of  all  the  duties  which  other  officers 
of  the  Government  could  not  conveniently  perform.  When  the 
office  of  Commissioner  of  the  Revenue  was  abolished,  in  1819, 
the  Fifth  Auditor  was  designated  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury to  perform  the  duties  of  that  office.  Although,  since  that 
time,  there  have  been  no  internal  taxes  to  collect,  yet  those  gentle- 
men who  know  how  difficult  it  is  to  wind  up  an  old  concern,  will 
readily  believe  that  the  duties  imposed  upon  this  officer  have  been 
nearly  as  arduous  as  they  would  have  been,  had  internal  taxation 
continued.  This  branch  of  his  business  has  entailed  upon  him 
an  extensive  correspondence  with  all  the  Collectors  in  the  United 
States,  who  have  not  finally  closed  their  accounts — and  the  num- 
ber of  such,  even  at  this  day,  is  not  small.  But  the  most  extra- 
ordinary of  all  the  duties  which  has  been  imposed  upon  this  officer, 
is  that  which  the  President  of  the  United  States  devolved  upon 
him  in  1821.  Although  never  bred  to  the  laws,  yet  he  was 
appointed  to  discharge  duties  which  strictly  and  properly  belong 
to  the  office  of  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States.  Ever 
since  that  time,  he  has  directed  and  superintended  all  the  law 
suits,  throughout  the  Union,  in  which  the  Government  have  been 
concerned;  and,  at  the  present  moment,  the  United  States  have 
upwards  three  thousand  law  suits  depending. 

To  show  the  extent  and  the  arduous  nature  of  this  duty,  I 
would  remark,  that  the  then  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who  was 
never  suspected  of  a  want  of  proper  economy — an  officer  upon  the 
purity  and  wisdom  of  whose  official  conduct  the  People  of  this 
country  have  passed,  and  who  is  now  revered  in  his  retirement 
by  every  patriot,  recommended  that  a  person  should  be  appointed 
for  the  sole  purpose  of  attending  to  these  suits,  with  a  salary 
of  $2,500  per  annum. 

If,  therefore,  there  be  any  one  officer  in  this  Government, 
whom  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  ought  not  to  have  desig- 
nated as  useless,  that  officer  is  the  Fifth  Auditor  of  the  Treasury. 
I  am  just  now  reminded  by  gentlemen  around  me,  that  this 
officer,  in  addition  to  other  burdens  imposed  upon  him,  has  the 
charge  of  all  the  light  houses  in  the  United  States. 


1828]  RETRENCHMENT  279 

I  have  a  word  to  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Maryland  [Mr. 
Barney]  before  I  take  my  seat.  I  am  prepared  at  this  time,  and 
at  all  times,  to  act  upon  the  subject  of  reducing  our  own  pay. 
In  relation  to  this  question,  I  formed  a  deliberate  opinion  six 
years  ago,  which  my  experience  ever  since  has  served  to 
strengthen  and  confirm,  that  the  per  diem  allowance  of  members 
of  Congress  ought  to  be  reduced.  As  a  compensation  for  our 
loss  of  time,  it  is  at  present  wholly  inadequate.  There  is  no  gen- 
tleman fit  to  be  in  Congress,  who  pursues  any  active  business  at 
home,  who  does  not  sustain  a  clear  loss  by  his  attendance  here. 
If  we  consider  our  pay,  with  reference  to  our  necessary  individual 
expenses,  it  is  too  much.  It  is  more  than  sufficient  to  cover 
our  expenses.  I  believe  that  the  best  interests  of  the  country 
require  that  it  should  be  reduced  to  a  sum  no  more  than  sufficient 
to  enable  us  to  live  comfortably  whilst  we  are  here.  For  my  own 
part,  I  do  not,  like  the  gentleman  from  Maryland  [Mr.  Barney] 
give  away  to  my  constituents  my  per  diem  allowance.  I  receive 
it,  and  use  it  for  my  own  benefit.  It  seems  that  gentleman  uses 
the  surplus  of  his  pay,  in  displaying  his  liberality  to  his  con- 
stituents ;  by  making  donations  to  churches  and  charitable  institu- 
tions at  the  public  expense.  In  this  manner  he  may  use  it  most 
effectually  for  his  own  advantage;  but  still  I  am  inclined  to  be- 
lieve, his  constituents,  as  well  as  mine,  would  be  quite  as  well 
satisfied,  if  the  surplus  were  allowed  to  remain  in  the  Treasury, 
for  the  benefit  of  the  Nation.  If  the  Government  of  this  country 
should  ever  want  to  employ  almoners  to  distribute  their  bounty, 
the  last  men  whom  the  People  should  desire  to  employ  in  this 
office,  would  be  members  of  Congress.  It  might  be  dangerous  to 
trust  them  with  the  performance  of  such  a  duty. 

Upon  the  whole  I  scarcely  know  how  to  vote  upon  the  pres- 
ent question.  If  the  Chairman,  or  any  gentleman  upon  the  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means,  to  whom  this  resolution  is  directed, 
will  say  there  is  any  prospect  that  it  may  be  productive  of  good, 
during  the  present  session,  I  shall  vote  in  the  affirmative.  If  not, 
I  shall  vote  in  the  negative.  When  we  commence  the  work  of 
reform,  I  wish  to  enter  upon  it  seriously.  I  wish  the  House  to 
be  prepared  to  act  with  wisdom  and  with  energy,  in  cutting  off 
the  useless  branches  of  public  expenditure.  Until  that  time  shall 
arrive,  I  do  not  wish  to  encourage  hopes  which  cannot  be  realized. 


280  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

REMARKS,  JANUARY  24,  1828, 

ON  RETRENCHMENT.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  that,  if  the  House  should  determine  to 
adopt  any  resolution  on  the  subject  of  reform,  at  the  present  time, 
it  ought  to  contain  a  distinct  proposition,  that  it  was  expedient 
to  discharge  the  national  debt  as  soon  as  possible.  For  this 
reason,  he  could  not  vote  for  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  New- York,  [Mr.  Taylor.]  When  that  gentle- 
man moved  an  amendment,  which,  if  it  should  prevail,  would 
strike  out  all  that  part  of  the  original  resolution  which  related  to 
the  extinguishment  of  the  public  debt,  he  expected  to  hear  some 
reasons  urged  for  such  an  omission.  In  this  he  had  been  dis- 
appointed. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.  I  know  it  has  become  very  fashionable  in 
the  present  day,  to  say,  that  we  are  discharging  the  public  debt 
too  rapidly.  Many  deplore  that  it  is  melting  away  so  fast :  and 
although  it  has  not  been  openly  avowed  that  a  public  debt  is  a 
public  blessing,  yet  such  is  the  necessary  tendency  of  the  remarks 
which  we  often  hear.  Upon  this  subject,  I  beg  the  House  to 
recur  to  the  past  history  of  the  country.  What  was  the  amount 
of  our  debt  before  the  late  war?  It  had  been  so  much  reduced, 
that  a  very  wise  and  a  very  great  statesman  felt  himself  at  a  loss 
to  know  how  our  surplus  revenue  could  be  expended,  after  the 
debt  should  be  entirely  extinguished.  To  accomplish  this  pur- 
pose, amendments  to  the  Constitution  were  recommended.  But 
war  came ;  and  in  less  than  three  years,  the  public  debt  increased 
from  forty-five  to  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions  of  dollars. 
It  was  a  maxim  of  the  Father  of  his  Country,  that,  in  peace  it 
was  our  duty  to  prepare  for  war.  How  can  we  better  prepare, 
than  by  paying  our  debts?  According  to  the  system  which  has 
been  pursued  by  this  Government  from  its  origin,  we  have,  com- 
paratively speaking,  no  resource  left,  in  time  of  war,  but  a  resort 
to  loans.  They  and  they  alone,  must  support  our  credit  in  the 
day  of  trial;  and  yet  this  resource  had  nearly  been  exhausted 
before  the  close  of  the  last  war.  What  has  once  been,  experience 
teaches  us  may  be  again.  A  war,  by  injuring  our  foreign  trade, 
would  cut  off  many  of  the  sources  of  our  revenue,  and  we  should 
be  compelled  again  immediately  to  resort  to  loans.     I  wish,  then. 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  1,  pp.  1136- 
1138. 


1828]  RETRENCHMENT  281 

if  possible,  to  be  clear  of  debt  when  another  war  shall  commence. 
Our  debt,  reduced  as  it  has  been,  is  still  much  larger  than  it  was 
at  the  declaration  of  the  late  war.  A  future  war  would,  in  a  very 
few  years,  raise  it  higher  than  it  ever  has  been.  I  am,  therefore, 
in  favor  of  husbanding  all  our  resources,  and  applying  the  whole 
surplus,  not  absolutely  necessary  for  other  objects,  to  the  extin- 
guishment of  the  national  debt.  If,  therefore,  we  shall  pass  the 
resolution,  I  trust  that  this  object  will  stand  in  the  front  rank. 

I  know  that  the  process  of  extinguishing  the  debt  has  been 
rapidly  advancing  for  several  years,  and  I  do  not  complain  that  the 
present  administration  have  not  fairly  applied  the  sinking  fund  to 
this  purpose.  Although  I  do  not  pretend  to  be  their  friend,  yet 
I  am  willing  to  admit  they  have  gone  on  to  carry  into  effect  the 
law  creating  that  fund,  which  was  so  wisely  enacted  by  our 
predecessors.  This  rapid  extinguishment  of  the  public  debt  has 
been  productive  of  much  good  to  the  country.  Among  other 
benefits,  it  has  essentially  promoted  domestic  manufactures,  by 
forcing  capital  into  that  channel  of  business,  which  would  never 
have  been  thus  employed,  could  it  have  remained  in  the  public 
stock.  I  shall  vote  for  no  amendment  which  shall  not  embrace, 
in  distinct  terms,  the  position  that  the  public  debt  ought  to  be 
extinguished  as  speedily  as  possible. 

Mr.  B.  said  he  would  reply  in  a  few  words  to  his  friend  from 
Maryland  [Mr.  Barney.]  He  reciprocated  the  term  friend, 
because  he  believed  he  could  do  so  towards  that  gentleman  with 
propriety.  Said  Mr.  B.,  when  I  expressed  myself  friendly  to  the 
reduction  of  our  own  per  diem  allowance,  I  trust  neither  that 
gentleman,  nor  any  other  upon  this  floor,  attributed  my  remarks 
to  the  grovelling  and  selfish  desire  of  courting  popularity.  The 
people  of  this  country  are  too  clear-sighted  and  too  intelligent 
to  be  deceived  by  such  pretences.  I  here  distinctly  avow,  that  the 
saving  of  money  to  the  public  treasury  was  far  from  being  the 
chief  reason  which  influenced  my  mind  in  arriving  at  the  con- 
clusion that  our  per  diem  should  be  reduced.  I  firmly  believe  that 
my  own  constituents  would  not  regard  it  a  single  straw,  whether 
I  should  vote  for  eight  or  for  four  dollars  per  day.  My  motive 
was  of  a  higher  nature.  My  remarks,  I  trust,  sprung  from  a 
nobler  source.  If  the  gentleman  from  North  Carolina  [Mr. 
Culpeper]  had  reasoned  upon  the  fact  which  he  stated,  and  had 
drawn  the  fair  deduction  from  it,  he  would,  I  think  feel  the  force 
of  the  remarks  which  I  intend  to  make.  He  says  that  but  one 
bill  has  passed  into  a  law  during  the  present  session,  and  that  one 


282  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

is  a  bill  providing  for  the  pay  of  the  members  of  Congress.  I 
would  ask  that  gentleman,  why  is  this  the  case?  Why  has  not 
more  business  been  done?  If  he  had  asked  himself  these  ques- 
tions, he  would  probably  have  discovered  the  true  origin  of  my 
remarks.  I  wish  to  speak  with  all  due  deference  to  the  members 
of  this  House,  when  I  say  it  is  my  desire,  by  reducing  our 
wages,  to  make  it  our  interest,  as  well  as  our  duty,  to  do 
the  business  of  the  country  as  it  arises,  and  go  home  as 
soon  as  possible.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  in  a  hurry — I  do  not  wish 
to  act  without  due  deliberation;  and  yet,  I  firmly  believe  that 
the  public  business  might  be  better  transacted  than  it  is  at  present, 
in  little  more  than  half  the  period  of  our  long  sessions.  I  do  not 
profess  to  be  "  an  aged  gentleman;  "  but  yet,  upon  this  subject, 
I  can  speak  in  the  language  of  experience,  and  am  glad  that  there 
are  many  gentlemen  around  me  who  can  correct  me  if  I  should 
fall  into  error.  I  would  ask,  what  has  been  the  course  of  legis- 
lation which  we  have  heretofore  pursued?  What  have  we  done 
during  the  first  half  of  every  long  session  ?  I  answer,  compara- 
tively nothing.  The  fact  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  North 
Carolina,  [Mr.  Culpeper]  in  regard  to  the  business  which  has 
been  transacted  during  the  present  session,  is  substantially  true  of 
those  that  are  past.  But  I  do  not  complain  of  the  waste  of  time 
alone.  The  necessary  consequence  of  this  manner  of  proceeding 
is  to  force  the  whole  business  of  the  session  in  a  solid  mass  upon 
the  House  near  its  close.  Then  we  have  so  much  to  do,  that  we 
can  do  nothing  well.  There  is  neither  time  nor  opportunity  for 
investigation ;  and  measures  are  adopted,  the  nature  and  charac- 
ter of  which  cannot  be  understood  by  the  House.  Immediately 
before  the  close  of  the  session,  we  are  employed  in  passing  bills 
until  12,  i,  2,  and  3  o'clock  in  the  morning.  I  have  been  upon 
this  floor  at  a  late  period  of  the  night,  when  important  amend- 
ments were  arriving  every  few  minutes  from  the  Senate,  which 
were  adopted,  when,  I  believe,  there  were  not  more  than  thirty  or 
forty  members  present.  I  do  know  that  it  was  then  in  the  power 
of  any  individual,  by  merely  calling  for  a  division,  to  defeat  any 
of  these  measures.  This  would  have  furnished  official  infor- 
mation to  the  Speaker  that  a  quorum  was  not  present,  and  then  no 
business  could  have  proceeded. 

When  the  spirit  of  reform  is  abroad,  I  wish  to  try  the  experi 
ment,  whether  we  should  not  do  more  business,  and  do  it  better, 
in  a  shorter  time,  if  our  pay  were  less.     I  say  we,  because  I  am 
conscious  that  I  like  money  quite  as  well,  and  have  been  quite  as 


1828]  RETRENCHMENT  283 

much  to  blame,  as  other  members.  As  to  the  saving  of  a  few 
dollars  per  day,  out  of  the  pay  of  each  member,  to  the  People 
of  the  United  States,  they  disregard  it,  and,  in  that  view  of  the 
subject,  I  disregard  it.  I  concur  with  the  gentleman  from  Mary- 
land, in  believing  it  to  be  small  game.  If  its  tendency,  however, 
should  be,  as  I  believe  it  would,  to  direct  our  attention  more  ear- 
nestly to  the  public  business  of  the  country,  and  to  induce  us  to 
apply  ourselves  more  industriously  to  discharge  it,  the  effect 
would  be  happy.  I  did  not  wish,  at  the  present  time,  to  be  drawn 
out  into  this  explanation.  It,  however,  became  necessary.  Hav- 
ing done  so,  I  can  now  utterly  disclaim  the  idea,  that  I  was  urged 
to  the  performance  of  this  duty  by  any  desire  to  obtain  popularity, 
which,  if  it  rested  upon  no  other  foundation,  would  be  fleeting 
in  its  nature,  and  would  not  be  worth  possessing  by  any  honorable 
man. 

The  gentleman  from  Maryland  asks  why  I  had  not,  ere  this, 
made  a  motion  to  reduce  our  wages,  as  I  had  long  been  thor- 
oughly convinced  of  its  propriety  ?  I  answer  that  I  have  not  now 
made  such  a  motion;  I  have  merely  expressed  my  opinion.  I 
have  not  set  myself  up  as  a  reformer  of  every  abuse  which  I  see 
here.  To  become  a  reformer  in  this  Government,  I  fear  would 
be  a  most  troublesome,  thankless,  and  hopeless  task,  particularly 
if  the  first  blow  should  be  directed  against  ourselves.  If  I  had 
made  any  motion  upon  the  subject,  which  I  intend  to  do  at  a 
proper  time,  I  might  answer  him,  in  the  language  of  the  homely 
proverb,  "  better  late  than  never." 


REMARKS,  JANUARY  26,  1828, 

ON  RETRENCHMENT.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  I  do  not  rise  to  prolong  this  debate,  by 
entering  into  a  general  discussion  of  the  subject.  Sufficient  time 
has  already  been  wasted  upon  it.  When  it  was  first  introduced 
to  the  House  by  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  I  did  not  antici- 
pate that  it  could  have  occupied  so  much  of  our  time  as  it  has 
already  done. 

My  single  purpose,  at  this  time,  is  to  notice  an  observation 
which  was  made  yesterday,  by  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,   [Mr. 


Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  1,  pp.  1189- 
1191. 


284  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

Wright]  in  relation  to  the  Committee  of  Domestic  Manufactures. 
This  task  I  should  not  have  undertaken,  had  the  members  of  that 
committee  been  present  in  the  House,  either  yesterday  or  to-day ; 
because,  we  all  know  they  are  perfectly  able  to  defend  themselves. 
It  is  well  known  that  they  now  are,  and  for  a  considerable  period 
they  have  been,  absent  from  the  House,  by  leave,  discharging 
the  arduous  and  important  duties  which  the  House  have  thought 
proper  to  impose  upon  them.  If  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  had 
recollected  this  fact,  he  surely  ought  not  have  made  the  remark 
which  he  did. 

The  gentleman,  in  reply  to  a  remark  made  upon  this  floor, 
said,  he  feared  there  was  no  danger  that  we  should  have  a  tariff 
forced  upon  us  during  the  present  session.  That  we  had  not  yet 
heard  any  thing  from  the  Committee  of  Manufactures,  and  his 
constituents  feared  we  should  not  hear  from  them  during  the 
present  year.  The  gentleman  evidently  intended  to  convey  the 
idea  to  this  House,  and  to  the  nation,  that  the  committee  were 
opposed  to  the  great  interest  intrusted  to  their  care,  and  wished 
to  defeat  the  passage  of  any  tariff  during  the  present  session.  I 
ask  what  evidence  is  there,  to  justify  the  remark  of  that  gentle- 
man? When  the  House  gave  the  Committee  of  Manufactures 
the  power  to  send  for  and  examine  witnesses,  one  of  the  members 
of  that  committee  distinctly  declared,  upon  this  floor,  that  they 
would  report  during  the  present  month.  The  gentleman  ought, 
therefore,  in  common  justice,  to  have  waited  at  least  until  the 
close  of  the  month,  before  he  began  to  complain.  It  will  be 
time  enough  to  charge  the  committee  with  neglect,  when  the 
period  shall  have  elapsed,  within  which  they  avowed  their  inten- 
tion to  make  a  report. 

I  will  inform  the  gentleman,  that  the  members  of  that  com- 
mittee have  faithfully  and  industriously  devoted  themselves  to 
the  performance  of  their  duty.  Their  labor  has  been  almost 
incessant.  They  have  for  some  time  been  occupied  not  only  dur- 
ing the  whole  day,  but  a  great  part  of  the  night,  in  examining 
witnesses.  When  they  shall  make  a  report  to  this  House,  it  will 
be  one  resting  upon  facts,  not  upon  vague  and  contradictory  opin- 
ions. It  will  convince  all,  that  the  House  acted  wisely  in  granting 
that  committee  power  to  send  for  persons.  For  my  own  part, 
I  am  firmly  convinced,  that  the  facts  which  the  committee  have 
collected,  instead  of  retarding,  will  greatly  expedite  the  passage 
of  a  wise  and  judicious  tariff.  They  will  serve  to  conciliate  the 
enemies  of  the  system,  by  furnishing  them  with  convincing  testi- 


1828]  RETRENCHMENT  285 

mony,  that  domestic  manufactures  really  do  require  additional 
protection.  I  have  no  doubt  such  a  bill  will  be  reported,  as  shall 
unite  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  and  myself  in  its  support; 
although,  during  the  present  session,  we  have  stood  in  opposition 
to  each  other,  upon  almost  every  other  question.  Upon  this 
occasion,  I  shall  be  glad  to  embark  with  him  in  the  same  vessel, 
and  I  trust  we  shall  have  a  prosperous  voyage. 

As  the  House  appears  determined  to  pass  some  resolution 
upon  the  subject  now  before  them,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of 
making  a  suggestion  in  relation  to  the  Military  Academy  at  West 
Point.  It  is  chiefly  intended  for  the  committee  who  may  have 
charge  of  the  resolution. 

I  cannot  agree  with  some  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  ad- 
dressed the  House,  that  the  Military  Academy  should  be  abolished. 
On  the  contrary,  this  Government,  possessing  the  power  of  mak- 
ing war,  and  being  under  a  solemn  obligation  to  provide  for  the 
common  defence,  owe  it  to  themselves  and  to  the  People  of  this 
country,  to  furnish  them  with  the  means  of  military  instruction. 
War,  especially  in  modern  times,  has  become  an  art,  nay  a  science, 
so  extensive  and  so  complex  in  its  nature,  that  its  theory  can 
only  be  acquired  after  years  of  application.  A  Military  Academy 
is  the  best  plan  which  has  ever  yet  been  devised  of  communi- 
cating military  instruction.  It  is  true  that  a  few  men,  of  bril- 
liant genius,  have  appeared  in  the  world,  who,  without  a  military 
education,  by  mere  intuition,  have  excelled  in  the  art  of  war. 
These  splendid  exceptions  ought  not  to  detract  from  the  general 
rule  that  a  military  education  is  necessary  to  make  a  skilful  and 
efficient  officer. 

Gentlemen  have  complained,  and  I  believe  with  justice,  that 
there  now  are  several  supernumerary  Cadets.  I  would  suggest 
the  source  of  this  evil  to  be,  that  the  Military  Academy  is  too 
large  for  the  Army — or,  any  gentleman  will  have  it  so,  the  Army 
is  too  small  for  the  Military  Academy.  A  just  proportion  does 
not  exist  between  them.  The  supply  of  officers  which  the  Acad- 
emy furnishes  is  too  great  for  the  demand  of  an  army  not 
amounting  to  6,000  men.  This  state  of  things  gives  birth  to 
another  evil.  No  man  who  now  enlists  as  a  private  soldier  in 
the  Army,  no  matter  what  may  be  his  capacity,  or  what  may  be 
his  conduct,  can  ever  expect  to  be  promoted  above  the  rank  of 
a  petty  officer.  He  can  never  indulge  the  hope,  which  the  policy 
and  the  practice  of  the  wisest  nations  have  sanctioned,  that  he  may 
one  day  become  a  general  officer.     Every  avenue  to  promotion  is 


286  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

closed  against  him  by  the  graduates  at  West  Point,  who  always 
have  the  preference,  and  are  more  than  sufficient  to  furnish  the 
army  with  officers. 

Whether  the  Government,  in  addition  to  furnishing  the 
means  of  a  military  education,  ought  to  feed,  and  clothe,  and  pay 
the  Cadets,  whilst  they  are  receiving  it,  is  a  question  well  worthy 
of  the  attention  of  the  committee  to  whom  this  subject  may  be 
referred.  One  thing  is  certain,  that,  whatever  other  sins  may  be 
fairly  chargeable  against  the  present  Administration,  they  cannot 
be  justly  chargeable  with  the  establishment  of  the  Military 
Academy. 


SPEECH,  FEBRUARY  4,  1828, 

ON    RETRENCHMENT.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  rose,  and  said,  perhaps  it  would  be  vain  to 
inquire  by  whom  this  debate  was  introduced.  It  is  certain  that 
we  have  now  got  into  it,  and  no  gentleman  can  predict  when  it  will 
close.  I  cannot  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts, 
[Mr.  Everett]  that  the  Opposition  are  justly  chargeable  with  its 
introduction  in  the  party  form  which  it  has  assumed,  nor  for  its 
protracted  character.  My  friend  from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  Letcher] 
has  truly  stated,  what  would  have  been  the  probable  course  of  the 
resolutions,  had  it  not  been  for  the  interference  of  the  gentleman 
from  Maryland,  [Mr.  Barney.]  The  mover  of  them,  who  is  a 
young  member  of  the  House,  would  have  made  a  speech  in  favor 
of  their  passage,  and  they  would  then  have  rested  quietly  with 
the  numberless  resolutions  which  have  gone  before  them.  The 
gentleman  from  Maryland,  however,  opposed  their  passage, 
upon  the  ground  that  no  cause  existed  even  to  suspect  the  present 
Administration  of  any  abuses.  From  that  moment  the  debate 
assumed  a  party  complexion. 

This  debate  would  have  ended  on  Thursday  last,  after  the 
solemn  appeal  for  that  purpose,  which  was  made  to  the  House  by 
the  venerable  gentleman  from  Louisiana,  [Mr.  Livingston]  had 
not  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  himself  prevented  it,  by 
moving  an  adjournment.  That  gentleman  ought  to  know,  that 
he  can  never  throw  himself  into  any  debate,  without  giving  it 
fresh  vigor  and  importance. 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  I,  pp.  1360- 

1377- 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  287 

It  is  true  that  a  single  straggler  from  the  ranks  of  the  Oppo- 
sition introduced  these  resolutions,  but  without  the  least  inten- 
tion of  bringing  on  a  general  engagement.  When  he  was 
attacked,  he  defended  himself  in  gallant  style,  and  we  were 
obliged  both  by  duty  and  by  policy  to  sustain  him.  It  is  for 
that  purpose  I  have  risen.  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts, 
[Mr.  Everett]  and  my  friend  and  colleague  from  Pennsylvania, 
[Mr.  Sergeant]  have  entirely  changed  the  character  of  the  de- 
bate, and  have  gone  into  an  elaborate  vindication  of  the  present 
Administration.     It  is  my  purpose  to  reply  to  their  arguments. 

My  colleague  commenced  his  remarks,  by  assigning  several 
reasons  why  he  would  not  have  offered  the  resolutions  which  had 
been  submitted  to  the  House  by  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky, 
[Mr.  Chilton.]  Against  these  reasons,  with  one  exception,  I 
have  no  complaint  to  make.  My  colleague  has  declared,  that  he 
would  not  have  introduced  such  resolutions,  because  they  might 
tend  to  injure  the  Government  of  the  country,  in  the  estimation 
of  the  People.  Against  this  position  I  take  leave  to  enter  my 
solemn  protest.  Is  it  the  Republican  doctrine?  What,  sir,  are 
we  to  be  told  that  we  shall  not  inquire  into  the  existence  of 
abuses  in  this  Government,  because  such  an  inquiry  might  tend 
to  make  the  Government  less  popular?  This  is  new  doctrine 
to  me — doctrine  which  I  have  never  heard  before  upon  this  floor. 

Liberty,  sir,  is  a  precious  gift,  which  can  never  long  be 
enjoyed  by  any  People,  without  the  most  watchful  jealousy.  It 
is  Hesperian  fruit,  which  the  ever-wakeful  jealousy  of  the  People 
can  alone  preserve.  The  very  possession  of  power  has  a  strong — 
a  natural  tendency,  to  corrupt  the  heart.  The  lust  of  dominion 
grows  with  its  possession;  and  the  man  who,  in  humble  life,  was 
pure,  and  innocent,  and  just,  has  often  been  transformed,  by 
the  long  possession  of  power,  into  a  monster.  In  the  Sacred 
Book,  which  contains  lessons  in  wisdom  for  the  politician,  as 
well  as  for  the  Christian,  we  find  a  happy  illustration  of  the  cor- 
rupting influence  of  power  upon  the  human  heart.  When 
Hazael  came  to  consult  Elisha,  whether  his  master,  the  King  of 
Syria,  would  recover  from  a  dangerous  illness,  the  prophet, 
looking  through  a  vista  of  futurity,  saw  the  crimes  of  which  the 
messenger  who  stood  before  him  would  be  guilty,  and  he  wept. 
Hazael  asked,  why  weepeth  my  Lord?  The  prophet  then  re- 
counted to  him,  the  murders  and  the  cruelties  of  which  he  should 
be  guilty,  towards  the  children  of  Israel.  Hazael,  in  the  spirit 
of  virtuous  indignation,  replied — Is  thy  servant  a  dog  that  he 


288  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

should  do  this  thing?  "And  Elisha  answered,  the  Lord  hath 
shewed  me,  that  thou  shalt  be  king  over  Syria."  This  man 
afterwards  became  king,  by  the  murder  of  his  master,  and  was 
guilty  of  enormities,  the  bare  recital  of  which  would  make  us 
shudder. 

The  nature  of  man  is  the  same  under  Republics  and  under 
Monarchies.  The  history  of  the  human  race  proves,  that  liberty 
can  never  long  be  preserved,  without  popular  jealousy.  It  is  the 
condition  of  its  enjoyment.  Our  rulers  must  be  narrowly  watched. 
When  my  colleague  advanced  the  position  which  he  did,  he  could 
not  have  foreseen  the  consequences  to  which  his  doctrine  would 
lead.  I  know  that  he  never  could  have  intended  that  it  should 
reach  thus  far;  but  yet  my  inference  is  perfectly  fair,  when  I 
declare  it  is  a  doctrine  which  only  suits  the  calm  of  despotism. 
It  is  the  maxim  of  despots,  that  the  People  should  never  inquire 
into  the  concerns  of  Government.  Those  who  have  enslaved 
mankind,  from  Caesar  to  Bonaparte,  have  always  endeavored, 
by  presenting  them  with  amusements,  and  by  every  other  means 
in  their  power,  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  People  from  the 
conduct  of  their  rulers.  I  therefore  differ,  toto  caelo,  from  my 
colleague  upon  this  point.  If  the  resolutions  of  the  gentleman 
from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  Chilton]  shall  have  the  effect  of  more  ear- 
nestly and  more  closely  directing  the  attention  of  the  People  to 
the  concerns  of  the  Government,  the  result  will  be  most  fortunate. 
If  the  Government  has  been  administered  upon  correct  principles, 
an  intelligent  People  will  do  justice  to  their  rulers;  if  not,  they 
will  take  care  that  every  abuse  shall  be  corrected. 

My  colleague  used  an  argument,  for  the  purpose  of  sustain- 
ing the  present  Administration,  which  I  should  not  have  expected 
from  that  quarter.  He  has  stated  that,  since  the  year  1816,  the 
national  debt  has  been  reduced,  from  126  to  66  millions  of  dol- 
lars. This  is  very  true;  and  from  the  argument  of  the  gentle- 
man, one  who  was  ignorant  of  the  subject  might  be  induced  to 
believe,  that  a  large  portion  of  this  reduction  may  be  fairly 
attributed  to  the  present  Administration.  He  evidently  endeav- 
ored to  make  this  impression  upon  the  House. 

I  would  ask  the  gentleman  what  agency  had  the  present 
Administration — nay,  what  agency  could  they  possibly  have  had, 
in  the  reduction  of  the  public  debt  ?  Are  they  entitled  to  the  least 
credit  upon  that  account?  Certainly  not.  It  was  a  subject  over 
which  they  had  no  control.  The  laws  which  brought  the  revenue 
into  the  Treasury,  out  of  which  the  debt  was  paid,  existed  long 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  289 

before  they  came  into  existence.  Commerce  wafted  into  our 
ports  wealth  from  all  nations,  and  the  duties  which  were  col- 
lected on  the  importation  of  foreign  merchandise,  they  were 
bound  to  apply  to  the  extinguishment  of  the  demands  which 
existed  against  the  country.  The  Administration  only  did  that, 
which  they  could  not  have  avoided  doing.  The  money  flowed 
into  the  Treasury  without  their  agency,  and  they  applied  that 
portion  of  it  which  they  were  bound  by  law  to  apply,  to  the  ex- 
tinguishment of  the  public  debt.  I  have  hitherto  admitted  that 
they  applied  it  fairly.  The  ancient  British  monarch,  who,  to 
show  his  People  the  impotence  of  human  power,  commanded  the 
tides  of  the  ocean  not  to  flow,  had  no  more  authority  over  the 
laws  of  nature,  than  the  present  Administration  could  have  had, 
in  preventing  the  tide  of  wealth,  out  of  which  the  public  debt 
has  been  reduced,  from  flowing  into  the  country.  Men  can 
never  be  entitled  to  credit  for  doing  that  which  they  could  not 
have  avoided.  The  praise,  therefore,  which  the  gentleman  wishes 
to  bestow  upon  the  present  Administration,  for  paying  the 
national  debt,  is  certainly  not  their  due. 

It  is  true  that,  in  times  like  the  present,  the  Republic  is  always 
most  in  danger.  When  the  clouds  of  adversity  are  lowering  over 
the  country,  and  when  direct  taxation  becomes  necessary  for  the 
support  of  the  Government,  the  People  are  watchful  and  jealous, 
and  will  then  attend  strictly  to  their  own  concerns.  It  is  in  the 
halcyon  days  of  peace  and  prosperity,  when  the  jealousy  of  the 
People  slumbers,  that  abuses  are  most  likely  to  steal  into  the  ad- 
ministration of  your  Government.  I  charge  not  the  present  Ad- 
ministration with  corruption;  but  I  do  most  solemnly  believe, 
that  several  of  their  measures  have  had  a  strong  tendency  towards 
it.  I  thank  Heaven  that,  in  these  days,  a  "  Military  Chieftain  " 
has  arisen,  whose  name  is  familiar  to  the  lips  of  even  the  most 
humble  citizen  of  this  country,  because  his  services  live  in  their 
hearts,  who  will  be  able,  by  the  suffrages  of  the  People,  to  wrest 
the  power  of  this  Government  from  the  hands  of  its  present  pos- 
sessors. No  one  else  could,  at  this  time,  have  successfully 
opposed  the  immense  patronage  and  power  of  the  Administration. 

I  think  I  have  shown,  that  the  present  Administration  have 
not  the  least  claim  to  merit,  for  the  payment  of  the  public  debt. 
It  is  a  claim  which  has  no  foundation  upon  which  to  rest.  It  is 
one  of  the  splendid  generalities  to  which  my  colleague  has  re- 
sorted, which,  when  you  come  to  examine  minutely,  vanishes  from 
the  touch. 

19 


290  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

I  shall  now  leave  my  colleague  from  Pennsylvania,  but  with 
the  intention  of  returning  to  him,  after  I  shall  have  disposed  of 
some  of  the  arguments  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts, 
[Mr.  Everett.]  Before,  however  I  commence  my  reply  to  that 
gentleman,  I  beg  leave  to  make  a  few  observations  upon  the  last 
Presidential  election.  I  shall  purposely  pass  over  every  charge 
which  has  been  made,  that  it  was  accomplished  by  bargain  and 
sale,  or  by  actual  corruption.  If  that  were  the  case,  I  have  no 
knowledge  of  the  fact;  and  shall  therefore  say  nothing  about  it. 
I  shall  argue  this  question  as  though  no  such  charges  had  ever 
been  made.  So  far  as  it  regards  the  conduct  which  the  people 
of  the  United  States  ought  to  pursue,  at  the  approaching  election. 
I  agree  entirely  with  the  eloquent  gentleman  from  Virginia,  [Mr. 
Randolph]  (I  cannot  with  oropriety  call  him  my  friend,)  that  it 
can  make  no  difference  whether  a  bargain  existed  or  not.  Nay, 
in  some  aspects  in  which  the  subject  may  be  viewed,  the  danger 
to  the  People  would  be  the  greater,  if  no  corruption  had  existed. 
It  is  true,  that  this  circumstance  ought  greatly  to  influence  our 
individual  opinions  of  the  men  who  now  wield  the  destinies  of 
the  Republic;  but  yet  the  precedent  would  be  at  least  equally 
dangerous,  in  the  one  case,  as  in  the  other.  If  flagrant  and  gross 
corruption  had  existed,  every  honest  man  would  start  from  it  with 
instinctive  horror,  and  the  People  would  indignantly  hurl  those 
men  from  the  seats  of  power,  who  had  thus  betrayed  their  dearest 
interests.  If  the  election  were  pure,  there  is,  therefore,  the 
greater  danger  in  the  precedent.  I  believe,  in  my  soul,  that  the 
precedent  which  was  established  at  the  last  Presidential  election, 
ought  to  be  reversed  by  the  People,  and  this  is  one  of  my  princi- 
pal reasons  for  opposing  the  re-election  of  the  present  Chief 
Magistrate. 

Let  us  examine  this  subject  more  closely.  General  Jackson 
was  returned  by  the  .People  of  this  country  to  the  House  of 
Representatives,  with  a  plurality  of  electoral  votes.  The  distin- 
guished individual  who  is  now  the  Secretary  of  State,  was  then 
the  Speaker  of  this  House.  It  is  perfectly  well  known,  that,  with- 
out his  vote  and  influence,  Mr.  Adams  could  not  have  been  elected 
President.  After  the  election,  we  beheld  that  distinguished  in- 
dividual, and  no  man  in  the  United  States  witnessed  the  spectacle 
with  more  regret  than  I  did,  descending — yes,  sir,  I  say  descend- 
ing— from  the  elevated  station  which  you  now  occupy,  into  the 
cabinet  of  the  President  whom  he  had  elected. 
"  Quantum  mutatus  ab  Mo." 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  291 

In  the  midnight  of  danger,  during  the  darkest  period  of  the 
late  war,  "  his  thrilling  trump  had  cheered  the  land."  Although 
among  the  great  men  of  that  day  there  was  no  acknowledged 
leader  upon  this  floor,  yet  I  have  been  informed,  upon  the  best 
authority,  that  he  was  "  primus  inter  pares."  I  did  wish,  at  a 
future  time,  to  see  him  elevated  still  higher.  I  am  one  of  the 
last  men  in  the  country  who  could  triumph  over  his  fallen  for- 
tunes. Should  he  ever  return  to  what  I  believe  to  be  correct 
political  principles,  I  shall  willingly  fight  in  the  same  ranks  with 
him  as  a  companion — nay,  after  a  short  probation,  I  should  will- 
ingly acknowledge  him  as  a  leader.  What  brilliant  prospects 
has  that  man  not  sacrificed ! 

This  precedent,  should  it  be  confirmed  by  the  People  at  the 
next  election,  will  be  one  of  most  dangerous  character  to  the 
Republic.  The  election  of  President  must,  I  fear,  often  devolve 
upon  this  House.  We  have  but  little  reason  to  expect,  that  any 
amendment,  in  relation  to  this  subject,  will  be  made  to  the  Con- 
stitution in  our  day.  There  are  so  many  conflicting  interests  to 
reconcile,  so  many  powers  to  balance,  that,  when  we  consider  the 
large  majority  in  each  branch  of  Congress,  and  the  still  larger 
majority  of  States,  required  to  amend  the  Constitution,  the  pros- 
pect of  any  change  is  almost  hopeless.  I  believe  it  will  long 
remain  just  as  it  is.  What  an  example,  then,  will  this  precedent, 
in  the  pure  age  of  the  Republic,  present  to  future  times!  The 
People  owe  it  to  themselves,  if  the  election  must  devolve  upon  this 
House,  never  to  sanction  the  principle  that  one  of  its  members 
may  accept,  from  the  person  whom  he  has  elected,  any  high  office, 
much  less  the  highest  in  his  gift.  Such  a  principle,  if  once 
established,  must,  in  the  end,  destroy  the  purity  of  this  House, 
and  convert  it  into  a  corrupt  electoral  conclave.  If  the  individual 
to  whom  I  have  alluded,  could  elect  a  President,  and  receive 
from  him  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State,  from  the  purest 
motives,  other  men  may,  and  hereafter  will,  pursue  the  same 
policy,  from  the  most  corrupt.  "  If  they  do  these  things  in  the 
green  tree,  what  shall  be  done  in  the  dry  ?  "  This  precedent  will 
become  a  cover,  under  which  future  bargains  and  corrupt  combin- 
ations will  be  sanctioned;  under  which  the  spirit  of  the  Consti- 
tution will  be  sacrificed  to  its  letter. 

I  shall  now,  Mr.  Speaker,  enter  upon  a  more  particular  reply 
to  the  arguments  of  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr. 
Everett.]  I  wish  I  were  able  to  follow  the  example  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Virginia,  [Mr.  Randolph]  and  to  take  the  general 


292  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

and  comprehensive  views  of  political  subjects,  which  he  recom- 
mended. As  I  cannot  pursue  that  course,  I  must  enter  into 
detail,  and  make  such  a  speech  as  he  would  attribute  to  a  lawyer. 
What  was  the  first  important  act  of  the  present  Administra- 
tion? No,  not  the  first,  but  the  first  after  that  message  which 
certainly  partook  much  more  of  the  spirit  of  the  "  Statesman  of 
40  years,"  who  had  been  bred  in  foreign  courts,  than  that  of  the 
plain  simple  American  Republican.  The  President  claimed  the 
power,  and  mere  courtesy  prevented  him  from  exercising  it,  of 
commissioning  ministers  to  attend  the  Congress  of  Panama, 
without  "  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate."  My  friend 
from  North  Carolina,  [Mr.  Carson]  was,  in  my  opinion,  correct, 
when  he  declared,  that  one  of  the  first  important  acts  of  the  Presi- 
dent had  been,  to  claim  a  power  in  direct  violation  of  the  Con- 
stitution. That  instrument  declares,  that  the  President  "  shall 
nominate,  and,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate, 
shall  appoint,  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers,  and  consuls, 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  all  other  officers  of  the  United 
States,  whose  appointments  are  not  herein  otherwise  provided 
for,  and  which  shall  be  established  by  law."  This  is  a  clear, 
plain  provision.  Upon  what  authority,  then,  did  the  President 
claim  the  right  to  send  Ministers  to  this  Congress,  without  the 
consent  of  the  Senate?  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Everett]  has  answered  the  question,  and  has  sustained  this  claim 
of  power,  by  a  most  novel  argument.  He  has  read  to  us  the 
act  of  Congress,  of  July  1,  1790,  which  provides,  "that  the 
President  of  the  United  States  shall  be,  and  he  hereby  is,  author- 
ized to  draw  from  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  a  sum  not 
exceeding  forty  thousand  dollars,  annually,  to  be  paid  out  of  the 
moneys  arising  from  the  duties  on  imports  and  tonnage  for  the 
support  of  such  persons  as  he  shall  commission  to  serve  the  United 
States  in  foreign  parts,  and  for  the  expense  incident  to  the  busi- 
ness in  which  they  may  be  employed."  How  commission? 
Without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate?  Certainly  not; 
unless  you  can  suppose  that  the  very  first  Congress  under  the 
Constitution,  deliberately  intended  to  destroy  the  power  which  the 
Constitution  had  wisely  conferred  upon  the  Senate.  The  lan- 
guage of  the  act  of  Congress  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  power 
of  the  Senate;  because  the  President  does,  in  fact,  always  com- 
mission public  Ministers  and  other  officers  of  the  Government, 
after  the  Senate  have  advised  and  consented  to  their  appointment. 
This  phraseology  was  continued,  in  the  several  acts  providing 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  293 

the  means  of  intercourse  between  the  United  States  and  foreign 
nations,  until  the  year  1800,  when  the  act  of  the  19th  of  March, 
1798,  the  last  in  which  it  had  been  used,  was  suffered  to  expire. 
Since  that  time,  no  such  expression  has  ever  been  introduced 
into  any  of  the  subsequent  acts.  And  yet  this  phrase,  which  had 
been  employed  in  acts  that  have  long  ceased  to  exist,  was  laid 
hold  of  by  the  President  to  justify  this  extraordinary  claim  of 
power.  Whilst  it  affords  no  ground  for  his  justification,  it  shows 
how  desirous  men  in  power  are  to  lay  hold  of  every  pretext, 
no  matter  how  trifling,  to  extend  their  authority.  This  is  a  law 
of  nature,  which  can  never  be  abolished  by  any  law  of  man. 
It  proves,  conclusively,  the  wisdom  and  the  necessity  of  watching 
over  our  rulers,  with  a  jealous  eye. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  assail  another  position  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  Everett.]  He  argued  against 
including  in  the  resolutions  before  the  House  the  contingent  ex- 
penses of  foreign  intercourse.  The  gentleman  shakes  his  head. 
He  certainly  did  say,  that  it  looked  like  trenching  upon  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  Executive.  The  gentleman  believes  that  the 
expenditure  of  the  contingent  fund  for  foreign  intercourse,  is  a 
prominent  point  before  the  House.     I  think  so  too. 

The  application  of  this  entire  fund  is  left  to  the  sound  dis- 
cretion of  the  Executive,  and  is  to  be  accounted  for  at  the 
Treasury,  in  a  two-fold  manner.  It  is  his  duty  to  account 
specially,  and  produce  regular  vouchers,  "  in  all  instances,  where- 
in the  expenditure  thereof  may,  in  his  judgment,  be  made  public." 
When  that  is  not  the  case,  he  settles  the  account,  "  by  making  a 
certificate  of  the  amount  of  such  expenditures  as  he  may  think 
it  advisable  not  to  specify."  This  last  is  called  the  secret  ser- 
vice money.  This  is  the  distinction  between  the  two  portions  of 
the  fund.  It  is  necessary  for  the  good  of  the  People,  that  the 
manner  in  which  the  secret  service  money  is  expended,  should 
not  be  made  public.  If  the  names  of  those  persons  to  whom  it 
is  given  were  not  kept  secret,  the  Government,  in  times  of  peril, 
might  be  prevented  from  getting  important  information,  which 
they  could  otherwise  obtain.  But,  Mr.  Speaker,  give  me  the 
Administration  which  requires  but  little  secret  service  money, 
especially  in  time  of  peace.  Indeed,  I  am  inclined  to  believe, 
that  none  is  then  necessary.  A  Republican  Government  ought 
to  be  open  in  its  conduct,  and  have  as  few  secrets  as  possible. 
Upon  one  occasion,  Jefferson  returned  the  entire  contingent  fund, 
which  had  been  appropriated  for  foreign  intercourse,  untouched. 


294  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

I  am  just  informed  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  [Mr.  Ran- 
dolph] that  Washington  did  the  same.  These  are  examples  well 
worthy  of  imitation  in  our  day. 

I  do  not  wish  to  know  the  manner  in  which  the  present 
Administration  have  applied  the  secret  service  money.  I  shall 
never  knowingly  invade  a  single  right  which  belongs  to  the  Exec- 
utive. These  resolutions  contain  no  such  principle ;  but  one  great 
reason,  why  they  have  found  any  favor  in  my  eyes,  is,  that  I  wish 
to  ascertain  the  aggregate  amount,  not  the  items,  of  the  secret 
service  money  which  has  been  expended  since  the  present  Admin- 
istration came  into  power,  and  I  wish  to  have  a  special  account 
laid  before  this  House,  of  the  manner  in  which  the  residue  of  the 
contingent  fund  for  foreign  intercourse  has  been  expended.  This 
will  be  an  invasion  of  no  prerogative  which  belongs  to  the 
President. 

I  now  approach  the  main  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
Massachusetts,  [Mr.  Everett]  and  in  the  commencement,  I  shall 
lay  down  a  position  broadly,  which  I  believe  I  shall  be  able  to 
prove  conclusively — that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
did  receive  an  outfit  of  $9000,  whilst  he  was  a  Minister  abroad, 
in  direct  and  palpable  violation  of  a  law  of  the  United  States; 
and  that  at  this  day  he  retains  in  his  pocket  one-half  of  that  sum, 
in  opposition  to  the  declared  opinion  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States.  If  I  shall  not  establish  this  proposition,  I  have  never 
been  more  mistaken  in  my  life. 

In  relation  to  outfits  to  be  granted  to  public  Ministers,  all 
the  acts  of  Congress  which  preceded  that  of  the  1st  May,  18 10, 
spoke  the  same  language.  The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
[Mr.  Everett]  gave  us  an  historical  sketch  of  these  laws;  but, 
as  they  are  all  the  same  in  regard  to  the  question  I  am  now  about 
to  argue,  I  shall  only  refer  to  the  act  of  the  10th  May,  1800. 
It  was  that  act,  which  ascertained  the  compensation  of  public 
Ministers,  from  its  date,  until  it  was  repealed  by  the  act  of  1st 
May,  1 8 10.     I  shall  read  its  first  section. 

"  Be  it  enacted,  &c.  That  exclusive  of  an  outfit,  which  shall,  in  no  case, 
exceed  the  amount  of  one  year's  salary  to  any  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  or 
Charge  des  Affaires,  to  whom  the  same  may  be  allowed,  the  President  of 
the  United  States  shall  not  allow  to  any  Minister  Plenipotentiary  a  greater 
sum  than  at  the  rate  of  nine  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  as  a  compensation 
for  all  his  services  and  expenses :  nor  a  greater  sum  for  the  same,  than  four 
thousand  five  hundred  dollars  per  annum  to  a  Charge  des  Affaires ;  nor  a 
greater  sum  for  the  same  than  one  thousand  three  hundred  and  fifty  dollars 
per  annum  to  the  Secretary  of  any  Minister  Plenipotentiary." 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  295 

From  the  origin  of  the  government,  until  the  year  1810, 
the  President  clearly  had  the  right  to  allow  an  outfit  to  a  Minis- 
ter, whom  he  might  think  proper  to  transfer  from  one  European 
Court  to  another.  The  language  of  the  act  of  1800,  and  of  the 
previous  acts,  is  general  and  indefinite.  Whether  they  would 
have  justified  him  in  making  such  an  allowance,  to  a  Minister 
whom  he  might  have  employed  upon  a  new  mission,  the  functions 
of  which  were  to  be  exercised  at  the  Court  where  he  resided,  is  a 
question  upon  which  I  shall  express  no  opinion. 

The  act  of  18 10  limited  the  general  language  of  that  of  1800, 
and  confined  the  discretion  of  the  President,  in  the  allowance 
of  outfits,  to  the  case  of  a  Minister  "  on  going  from  the  United 
States  to  any  foreign  country."  The  first  section  of  that  act, 
after  fixing  the  annual  compensation  of  foreign  Ministers, 
Charges,  and  Secretaries  of  Legation,  contains  the  following 
enactment :  "  Provided,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  President  of  the 
United  States  to  allow  to  a  Minister  Plenipotentiary,  or  Charge 
des  Affaires,  on  going  from  the  United  States  to  any  foreign 
country,  an  outfit,  which  shall  in  no  case  exceed  one  year's  full 
salary  of  such  Minister  or  Charge  des  Affaires."  This  act,  in 
express  terms,  limits  the  general  expressions  of  former  laws. 
It  authorizes  the  President  to  allow  an  outfit  to  every  public 
Minister,  upon  his  first  appointment,  for  the  purpose  of  establish- 
ing him  abroad.  After  he  has  received  one  outfit,  and  has  gone 
from  the  United  States  to  the  Government  to  which  he  has  been 
sent,  in  case  he  should  be  transferred  from  it  to  another  Govern- 
ment, the  President,  since  the  act  of  18 10,  has  not  had  the  power 
of  allowing  him  a  second  outfit. 

I  am  glad  that  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Everett]  cited  the  cases  which  he  has  done,  of  the  allowance 
of  outfits  to  Ministers,  by  the  Executive,  upon  transferring  them 
from  one  European  Court  to  another.  If  the  gentleman  had 
not  done  so,  we  might  have  been  at  a  loss  to  account  for  the 
change  of  phraseology  in  the  act  of  18 10,  and  the  difference 
between  it,  and  all  former  acts  upon  the  same  subject.  The 
case  of  the  outfit  of  Mr.  Monroe,  upon  his  transfer  from  England 
to  France,  and  all  the  other  cases  brought  into  the  view  of  the 
House  by  the  gentleman,  were  determined,  under  former  laws 
which  clearly  gave  to  the  President  power  over  the  question. 
These  cases  are  authorities  against  the  gentleman ;  because  they 
conclusively  show  the  reason  which  guided  the  Legislature,  in 
1 810,  in  changing  the  law,  and  in  limiting  the  power  of  the 


296  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

President,  in  the  allowance  of  outfits  to  the  case  of  Ministers,  on 
their  departure  from  the  United  States  to  a  foreign  country. 

I  may  be  asked,  did  Congress  mean  to  declare,  that  no  outfit 
should  ever  be  allowed  upon  the  transfer  of  a  Minister  from  one 
Court  to  another?  I  answer,  by  no  means.  They  intended  to 
reserve  to  themselves  the  power  of  deciding,  in  each  particular 
case,  whether  any  new  outfit  ought  to  be  allowed,  and,  if  so, 
what  should  be  its  amount.  If  a  Minister  should  be  transferred 
from  one  extremity  of  Europe  to  another — from  Lisbon  to  St. 
Petersburgh,  a  new  outfit  of  $9000  might  be  necessary.  But, 
in  the  case  of  a  transfer  from  Lisbon  to  Madrid,  there  might 
be  no  occasion  for  any  new  outfit;  and,  if  there  were,  the  one- 
half  of  a  full  outfit,  or  even  less,  would  probably  be  sufficient. 
The  present  Administration,  in  the  estimates  which  they  sub- 
mitted to  this  House,  at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  asked  a 
second  outfit  of  $9000  for  our  Minister  at  Mexico,  because  they 
intended  to  transfer  him  from  the  City  of  Mexico  to  Tacubaya, 
a  distance  of  only  eight  or  nine  miles.  Although  I  did  not  think 
it  proper  to  allow  a  full  outfit,  in  such  a  case,  yet  I  was  glad  that 
the  request  had  been  made ;  because  it  showed  that  the  Executive 
were  returning  to  a  correct  construction  of  the  law,  in  relation 
to  this  subject.  It  showed  that  the  President  was  unwilling  to 
follow  the  precedents  which  existed  heretofore,  upon  the  trans- 
fer of  a  Minister  from  one  court  to  another;  or  otherwise  he 
would  have  allowed  him  an  outfit,  without  consulting  Congress. 

In  my  judgment,  the  act  of  1810  is  so  plain,  that  he  who 
runs  may  read.  It  is  a  universal  rule  of  construction,  that  when 
a  law  delegates  a  special  power  to  an  individual,  and  confines 
its  exercise  to  a  particular  case,  that  it  necessarily  excludes  him 
from  the  exercise  of  general  power,  over  all  other  cases.  The 
act  of  Congress  gave  to  the  President  the  special  power  of  allow- 
ing an  outfit  to  a  Minister,  when  he  was  leaving  the  United  States 
and  going  to  a  foreign  country;  but  yet,  the  act  has  received 
such  a  construction,  that  the  Executive  have  claimed  and  exer- 
cised the  power  of  allowing  outfits,  in  all  cases,  without  limita- 
tion, and  without  restraint.  For  this  purpose,  the  contingent 
fund  is  used,  in  violation  of  the  law. 

It  will  not  only  be  curious,  but  instructive,  to  mark  the 
gradual  progress  of  the  Executive,  until  at  length  they  repealed 
the  act  of  1810.  In  the  month  of  April,  1813,  the  present  Presi- 
dent, then  being  our  resident  Minister  at  Russia,  was  appointed 
one  of  the  Envoys  Extraordinary,  under  the  joint  commission, 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  297 

to  treat  with  England.  As  this  commission  owed  its  origin  to 
the  mediation  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  the  seat  of  the  negotia- 
tion was  to  be  at  St.  Petersburgh.  A  short  time  after  the 
appointment,  Mr.  Monroe,  then  Secretary  of  State,  transmitted 
to  Mr.  Adams,  $9000,  a  full  outfit;  although,  at  the  time,  it 
was  not  contemplated  that  Mr.  Adams  should  change  his  resi- 
dence. The  House  will,  therefore,  observe  that  this  was  not 
even  the  case  of  a  transfer  from  one  court  to  another;  but  it 
was  the  allowance  of  a  full  second  outfit  to  the  same  Minister, 
while  he  continued  at  the  same  court.  The  then  President,  when 
he  directed  the  money  to  be  sent,  no  doubt  expected  that  Congress 
would  sanction  his  conduct.  Accordingly  we  find  that  an  appro- 
priation was  asked  to  cover  this  outfit.  The  question  was  then 
brought  before  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  for  their  deter- 
mination, and  was  deliberately  decided.  A  legislative  construc- 
tion was  given  in  August,  18 16,  to  the  act  of  1810,  against  this 
outfit;  but  Congress,  exercising  a  liberal  discretion,  allowed  Mr. 
Adams  $4,500  instead  of  $9,000. 

Sometime  after  this  determination  of  the  question,  (too  long, 
perhaps,)  on  the  23d  June,  181 4,  Mr.  Monroe  wrote  to  Mr. 
Adams,  in  the  following  words :  "  It  is  necessary  to  apprize 
you,  that,  although  a  full  outfit  was  transmitted  to  you  by  the 
Neptune,  and  intended  to  be  allowed  you  by  the  Executive,  as 
a  member  of  the  extra  mission  at  St.  Petersburgh,  yet  the  Legis- 
lature, on  a  reference  of  the  subject  to  them,  for  an  appropria- 
tion, decided  the  principle  by  the  amount  appropriated,  and  the 
discussion  which  took  place  at  the  time,  that  half  an  outfit  only 
could  be  allowed  to  a  Minister,  under  circumstances  applicable 
to  your  case.  In  your  drafts  on  the  bankers,  and  in  your  future 
accounts,  you  will  be  pleased  to  keep  this  deduction  in  view." 
After  the  present  President  had  thus  discovered,  that  the  money 
was  sent  to  him  by  mistake,  did  he  submit  to  the  decision  of 
Congress?  No,  sir.  Although,  within  the  period  of  eight  years, 
before  his  return  to  this  country,  he  had  received  $115,000  from 
this  "  penurious  Government ;  "  yet  he  still  continued  to  persist 
in  retaining  the  whole  outfit  in  his  pocket.  Congress  gave  a 
construction  to  their  own  law.  They  believed  it  had  been  vio- 
lated, when  an  outfit  of  $9,000  was  sent  by  the  President  to  Mr. 
Adams;  yet  they  liberally  allowed  him  $4,500.  Instead  of 
accepting  that  sum  with  gratitude,  he  made  a  complaint  against 
this  "penurious  Government,"  and  denied  the  right  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  the  Union  to  interfere.     He  declared  "  that  the  principle 


298  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

which  Congress  would  settle,  by  an  ultimate  refusal  to  allow  the 
appropriation,  could  be  no  other  than  a  principle  to  confiscate, 
without  any  alleged  offence." 

The  next  year,  however,  conveyed  him  good  tidings  from 
this  country.  On  the  19th  November,  181 5,  Mr.  Monroe  wrote 
a  letter  to  Mr.  Adams,  marked  "  private,"  from  which  the  follow- 
ing is  an  extract :  "  It  was  doubted  whether  the  inhibition  of  a 
greater  sum  than  one  year's  salary  as  an  outfit,  contained  in  the 
terms  on  going  from  the  United  States,  might  not  be  construed, 
as  precluding  an  allowance  by  way  of  outfit,  to  any  Minister  who 
did  not  go  from  the  United  States.  Mr.  Erving's  appointment 
to  Spain  involved  the  same  question.  It  was  wished  to  reserve 
the  point  for  more  deliberate  consideration,  than  could  be  be- 
stowed on  it,  when  the  letter  of  March  15th  was  written  to  you. 
I  have  now  the  satisfaction  to  inform  you,  that  the  subject  has 
been  maturely  weighed,  and  that  the  result  has  been  in  favor 
of  the  outfit,  on  the  principle  that  those  restrictive  terms,  if 
applicable  to  Ministers  already  in  Europe,  are  no  further  so,  than 
to  confine  the  allowance  to  them,  within  the  same  limit."  This 
letter  communicated  to  him  that  construction  of  the  Executive 
Department,  which,  since  it  was  made,  has  entirely  repealed  in 
practice  the  limitation  upon  the  allowance  of  outfits,  contained 
in  the  act  of  18 10,  and  secured  to  him  his  full  outfit,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  will  of  the  Legislature,  which  had  been  clearly  ex- 
pressed in  1 81 3.  From  18 10  till  November,  181 5,  this  act  was 
obeyed  both  in  its  letter  and  in  its  spirit.  Then,  and  not  till  then, 
did  it  sink  under  Executive  construction. 

The  accounts  of  Mr.  Adams  continued  unsettled  at  the 
Treasury,  a  balance  appearing  against  him,  until  after  the  passage 
of  the  general  appropriation  bill,  in  April,  1822.  That  act 
provided  "  that  no  money  appropriated  by  the  said  act,  shall  be 
paid  to  any  person  for  his  compensation,  who  is  in  arrears  to  the 
United  States,  until  such  person  shall  have  accounted  for,  and 
paid  into  the  Treasury,  all  sums  for  which  he  may  be  liable." 
In  consequence  of  the  existence  of  this  salutary  provision,  the 
Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  refused  to  pay  Mr.  Adams  his  salary 
as  Secretary  of  State,  until  his  account,  as  a  Foreign  Minister, 
should  be  liquidated.  He  appealed  from  this  decision  to  Mr. 
Monroe,  the  then  President,  and,  in  support  of  this  appeal,  cited 
the  private  letter  which  Mr.  Monroe,  when  Secretary  of  State, 
had  written  to  him  in  November,  181 5,  as  conclusive  of  the  ques- 
tion.    In  this  appeal,  he  says,  "  that  the  President  was  authorized. 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  299 

by  the  first  section  of  the  act  of  Congress,  of  ist  May,  1810,  to 
make  this  allowance,  cannot  be  questioned,  under  the  construction 
which  has  uniformly  been  given  to  it,  a  construction  applied  upon 
full  deliberation  and  advisement,  and  which  has  been  admitted  in 
other  cases  upon  the  settlement  of  accounts  at  the  Treasury. 
For  this  construction,  I  refer  to  the  copy  of  your  letter  of  the 
19th  November,  181 5,  herewith  submitted." 

This  subject  was  referred,  by  the  President,  to  the  Attorney 
General  of  the  United  States,  and  the  construction  which  had 
been  placed  upon  the  act  of  Congress,  by  the  Administration,  in 
1 81 5,  was  fully  sustained,  in  the  broadest  terms,  by  that  officer. 
In  his  opinion,  dated  June  5th,  1822,  he  declares,  that  "  the  ques- 
tion of  outfit  is  given  to  the  President  exclusively,  and  without 
limit,  save  only  he  is  not  to  exceed  a  whole  year's  salary."  And 
thus,  sir,  you  perceive  in  what  manner  a  law,  which,  in  express 
terms,  limited  the  exercise  of  the  discretion  of  the  President,  in 
the  allowance  of  outfits,  to  Ministers  "  on  going  from  the  United 
States  to  a  foreign  country,"  has  become  unlimited;  and  how  the 
exclusive  power  over  the  question  of  outfit  has  been  conferred 
upon  the  President.  Notwithstanding  this  high  authority,  how- 
ever, I  think  I  have  maintained  my  proposition,  and  established, 
conclusively,  that  Mr.  Adams  now  retains  in  his  pocket  $4,500, 
in  violation  of  the  act  of  18 10  and  in  violation  of  the  solemn 
legislative  construction  which  it  received,  in  181 3. 

But,  says  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  Everett,] 
even  if  there  were  anything  wrong  in  the  settlement  of  the 
accounts  of  Mr.  Adams,  he  is  not  to  blame.  He  did  not  inter- 
fere— he  left  all  these  matters  to  the  accounting  officers  of  the 
Treasury.  Is  this  the  fact?  Did  he  not  receive  the  money, 
and  does  he  not  still  retain  it?  Did  he  not  refuse  to  refund  it 
when  it  was  demanded  by  the  Comptroller?  Did  he  not  appeal 
from  the  decision  of  that  officer,  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States?  And  was  not  his  refusal  to  comply  with  the  decision  of 
Congress,  the  cause  why  the  act  of  18 10  has  received  that  con- 
struction, which  has  given  to  the  President  "  exclusively,  and 
without  limit,"  the  power  over  outfits? 

There  is  one  matter  of  fact,  which  I  wish  to  put  right,  be- 
fore I  proceed  further.  Mr.  Adams,  in  his  account,  on  the  30th 
June,  1814,  charged  the  sum  of  $886.86,  the  expenses  of  a  jour- 
ney from  St.  Petersburgh  to  Ghent.  It  is  but  just  to  him  to  say, 
that  he  had  left  his  family  behind  him,  at  St.  Petersburgh.  He 
never  did  return  from  Ghent  to  St.  Petersburgh ;   but,  yet,  there 


300  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

was  allowed  to  him  the  sum  of  $886.86,  for  his  expenses  in  re- 
turning to  that  capital.  This  is  what  has  been  so  often  called  his 
constructive  journey.  The  construction,  however,  did  not  end 
here.  After  this  allowance  had  been  made,  it  was  discovered  that 
the  travelling  expenses  of  Mr.  Bayard  and  Mr.  Gallatin,  from 
St.  Petersburgh  to  London,  and  from  thence  to  Ghent,  amounted, 
for  each,  to  the  sum  of  $1,556.54.  Their  journey  was  accom- 
plished chiefly  by  land.  In  the  final  settlement  of  the  account  of 
Mr.  Adams,  instead  of  $886.86,  which  had  been  at  first  allowed 
to  him  for  the  expense  of  a  journey  which  he  never  made,  he 
was  allowed  the  sum  of  $1,556.54.  The  reason  for  this  change, 
which  is  spread  upon  the  face  of  the  account  itself,  is,  that  he 
was  at  first  allowed  but  $886.86,  "  under  an  impression  that  the 
same  sum,  charged  by  him  for  the  journey  from  St.  Petersburgh 
to  Ghent,  would  be  equal  to  the  expenses  of  his  return,  but  which 
now  appears,  would  net  have  been  the  case,  as  that  journey  was 
made  chiefly  by  water,  but  his  return  must  have  been  by  land,  and 
by  the  same  route  as  that  taken  by  Messrs.  Gallatin  and  Bayard, 
and  equally  expensive." 

These  are  the  facts.  I  shall  not  argue  this  point,  but  will 
leave  it  to  my  colleague  and  friend  from  Pennsylvania,  [Mr. 
Ingham]  and  the  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island.  I  do  not  say 
that  some  allowance  ought  not  to  have  been  made  to  Mr.  Adams, 
under  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case.  One  thing,  how- 
ever, is  certain;  that  he  did  receive  $1,556.54,  for  the  expenses 
of  a  journey  which  he  neyer  made;  because  he  never  did  return 
from  Ghent  to  St.  Petersburgh. 

[Here  Mr.  Randolph  asked  Mr.  Buchanan  to  define  what 
was  a  constructive  journey.] 

Mr.  B.  said,  I  cannot  comply  with  the  request  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Virginia.  If  he  cannot  define  it  himself,  no  man  in 
this  House  can. 

But,  it  has  been  urged  by  the  gentleman  from  Massa- 
chusetts, [Mr.  Everett]  that  precedents  sanction  the  allowance 
of  the  outfit  to  Mr.  Adams.  I  admit  there  have  been  precedents 
in  abundance  since  181 5;  but  it  is  against  this  very  doctrine  of 
"  safe  precedents,"  that  I  am  now  contending.  On  the  fourth 
of  March  next,  it  will  be  seven  and  twenty  years  since  the  inaugu- 
ration of  Mr.  Jefferson.  What  has  been  our  history  ever  since? 
Each  President  has  nominated  his  successor,  as  regularly  as 
though  the  Constitution  conferred  upon  him  that  power.  During 
this  period,  each  President  has  been  called  upon  to  sanction  that 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  301 

which  he  had  done  as  Secretary  of  State.  The  line  of  "  safe 
precedents  "  has  been  unbroken,  and  the  first  office  in  the  world 
has  passed  as  regularly  to  each  succeeding  Secretary  of  State, 
as  the  imperial  crown  ever  descended  from  father  to  son.  How 
is  it  possible  that  abuses  can  ever  be  corrected,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances ?  A  trifling  departure  from  the  law  to-day,  becomes 
a  precedent  for  a  greater  violation  to-morrow ;  and  whilst  power 
continues  to  flow  in  one  unbroken  line,  abuses  must  still  continue 
increasing.  There  is  no  remedy  for  the  People,  but  by  breaking 
this  line  of  safe  precedents.  It  is  this  regular  course  of  succession, 
which,  in  the  lapse  of  time,  destroys  monarchies.  The  abuses 
which  the  father  introduces,  are  sanctioned  and  extended  by  the 
son,  until  at  length,  after  a  few  generations,  the  whole  Govern- 
ment becomes  tainted  with  corruption,  and  there  is  nothing  left 
for  the  People,  but  the  dreadful  remedy  of  revolution.  It  is 
the  principle  against  which  I  am  now  contending,  without  a 
special  reference  to  any  particular  Administration.  The  People 
of  the  United  States  have  at  length  determined  to  break  this 
line  of  Cabinet  succession,  and  to  reverse  the  doctrine  of  safe 
precedents;  and  I  trust  and  believe  they  will  accomplish  their 
purpose.  Rotation  in  office — that  salutary  principle,  in  a  Re- 
publican Government,  which  purifies  the  political  atmosphere,  and 
causes  the  successor  to  view,  with  a  jealous  and  scrutinizing 
eye,  the  acts  of  those  who  have  gone  before  him — has  had  no  real 
existence,  in  the  Federal  Government,  since  the  days  of  Thomas 
Jefferson.  There  has  been  a  regular  succession  ever  since.  Is  an 
abuse  now  pointed  out  ?  We  are  at  once  told,  it  is  sanctioned  by 
a  precedent ;  the  Monroes  and  the  Gallatins  have  done  the  same 
thing,  and  why  shall  we  not  do  so  too?  I  answer,  when  the  law 
forbids  it,  precedents  ought  to  be  disregarded.  All  the  precedents 
which  have  existed  since  1815,  although  they  have  violated,  can 
never  repeal  the  act  of  1810. 

I  now  come  to  that  part  of  the  argument  of  the  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  Everett]  which  relates  to  the  billiard 
table.  I  should  not  have  said  one  word  upon  this  subject,  did  I 
not  differ  entirely,  in  relation  to  it,  from  the  gentlemen  from 
Virginia  and  South  Carolina, [Mr.  Randolph  and  Mr.  Hamilton.] 
I  admit  that  the  expenditure  of  fifty  dollars  is  a  very  little  matter, 
and  this  has  ever  been  the  opinion  of  my  friend  from  North 
Carolina,  [Mr.  Carson]  who  has  been  so  often  introduced  into  the 
debate.  If  there  be  any  gentleman  in  the  House,  who  regards 
fifty  dollars  less  than  he  does,  I  do  not  know  the  man.     The  ques- 


302  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

tion  worthy  of  our  consideration,  is,  not  whether  the  price  of  the 
billiard  table  was  paid  out  of  the  Public  Treasury,  or  out  of  the 
private  purse  of  the  President;  but  whether  a  billiard  table  ought 
to  be  set  up,  as  an  article  of  furniture,  in  the  House  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States?  I  am  free  to  say,  I  think  it  ought 
not.  In  the  State  of  Virginia,  billiard  tables  are  prohibited  even 
in  the  mansions  of  private  gentlemen,  under  very  severe  penalties. 
The  gentleman  from  Virginia,  therefore,  cannot  now  indulge  in 
this  game  at  home:  for  I  know  him  too  well  to  believe  that  he 
would  violate  the  laws  of  his  own  State.  This  shows  the  moral 
sense  of  the  People  of  that  ancient  and  respectable  Common- 
wealth, in  relation  to  the  game  of  billiards.  To  use  a  familiar 
expression  of  their  own,  they  do  not  go  against  either  the  exercise 
or  the  amusement  of  the  play;  but  they  know  the  temptation 
which  it  presents  to  gambling,  and  the  consequent  ruin  which 
must  follow  in  its  train.  It  has  a  direct  tendency  to  corrupt  the 
morals  of  our  youth.  Indeed,  I  doubt  whether  there  be  a  single 
State  in  the  Union  which  has  not  prohibited  the  game  of  billiards. 
The  People  of  the  United  States  are  generally  a  moral  and  relig- 
ious People;  a  proper  regard,  therefore,  for  public  opinion,  for 
the  scruples  of  the  pious,  ought  to  have  prevented  the  first  Magis- 
trate of  the  Union  from  setting  such  an  example.  [Here  Mr. 
Randolph  observed,  there  was  no  law  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
against  playing  billiards.]  Mr.  Buchanan  then  said,  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  is  not  only  the  President  of  the  District 
of  Columbia,  but  of  the  whole  American  People;  and  they  con- 
demn this  and  every  other  species  of  gambling.  Ought,  then,  the 
man  who  has  been  elevated  to  the  most  exalted  station  upon 
earth,  and  whose  example  must  have  a  most  powerful  and  exten- 
sive influence  upon  the  morals  of  the  youth  of  our  country,  to 
set  up  a  billiard  table,  as  an  article  of  furniture,  in  the  House 
which  belongs  to  the  American  People?  He  certainly  ought  not 
to  keep  such  an  article  of  furniture  in  that  house,  nor  ought  he 
there  to  play  at  the  game.  I  should  never  have  invaded  his 
domestic  retirement,  for  the  purpose  of  discovering  whether  he 
kept  a  billiard  table  or  not.  I  should  never  have  been  the  first 
to  bring  this  matter,  either  before  the  House,  or  the  country. 
It  has  been  brought  here  by  others,  and  I  felt  it  to  be  my  duty 
to  express  my  opinion  upon  the  subject. 

It  has  been  said  that  Washington  played  at  billiards.     Be  it 
so.     I  will,  however,  venture  the  assertion,  that  he  never  set  up 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  303 

a  billiard  table  in  the  house  which  he  occupied,  at  the  Seat  of 
Government,  whilst  he  was  President  of  the  United  States. 

Descending  from  the  man  who  occupies  the  most  exalted 
station  in  the  country,  nay,  in  the  world,  to  the  Judges  of  your 
Courts  of  Justice,  I  would  ask,  whether  public  opinion,  in  any 
portion  of  this  Union,  would  tolerate,  that  such  a  magistrate 
might  establish  a  billiard  table  in  his  house,  or  even  play  publicly 
at  the  game? 

Upon  this  subject,  although  I  differ  from  the  gentlemen  from 
Virginia  and  South  Carolina,  yet  I  feel  certain  I  do  not  differ 
from  the  People  of  the  United  States.  They  believe  that  the 
President  ought  never  to  have  set  such  an  example.  Although 
I  do  not  pretend  to  be  a  rigid  moralist  myself,  yet  these  are  my 
opinions. 

I  will  now  make  a  few  remarks  upon  another  subject,  and 
then  I  shall  have  done  with  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts 
[Mr.  Everett.]  I  do  most  sincerely,  and  from  the  bottom  of 
my  heart,  regret,  that  the  gentleman  should  have  introduced 
the  libel,  which  he  says  has  been  extensively  circulated  throughout 
the  State  of  New  Hampshire,  into  this  debate.  I  never  heard 
it  before.  I  believe  that  the  person  to  whom  he  has  alluded  is  not 
only  a  lady  by  courtesy,  but  a  lady  by  nature  and  education.  I 
shall  not  credit  one  word  derogatory  to  her  reputation.  I  believe 
she  would  shrink  from  the  idea  of  having  her  name  introduced 
upon  this  floor,  and  thus  sent  over  the  United  States  in  connex- 
ion with  such  a  libel.  I  doubt,  therefore,  whether  the  gentleman 
has  rendered  her  an  acceptable  service,  in  defending  her  before 
this  House.  I  fear  that  he  has  exposed  her  to  unjust  and  un- 
generous attacks;  although  every  feeling  of  honor,  and  every 
dictate  of  policy,  will  be  roused  for  her  protection.  The  man 
who  attempts  to  destroy  the  character  of  a  woman,  destroys  his 
own.  The  American  People  are  chivalrous  and  generous  in 
their  feelings.  If  I  were  asked  to  say,  what  single  circumstance 
has  done  Mr.  Adams  the  most  injury  in  Pennsylvania,  I  should 
answer,  without  hesitation,  the  unmanly,  the  ungenerous,  and 
the  unjust  attacks  which  have  been  made — not  by  him,  for  I  be- 
lieve him  to  be  wholly  incapable  of  such  conduct — but  by  the 
presses  devoted  to  the  Administration,  against  the  pious,  the 
benevolent,  and  the  amiable  lady  of  General  Jackson.  I  hope 
none  of  the  presses  in  the  Opposition  will  follow  this  infamous 
example. 

The  lady  to  whom  the  gentleman  has  alluded  stands  high  in 


304  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

the  public  estimation,  and  in  mine.  I  trust  that  her  name  may 
never  be  connected  with  the  politics  of  the  day;  but  that,  freed 
from  any  public  observation  which  might  wound  her  feelings, 
she  may  be  left  to  enjoy  the  consciousness  of  having  done  her 
duty  in  every  station  of  life  in  which  she  has  been  placed. 

I  shall  now  return  to  my  colleague  from  Pennsylvania,  and 
after  noticing  a  few  of  his  arguments,  I  shall  no  longer  continue 
to  exhaust  the  patience  of  the  House.  He  has  introduced  into 
this  debate,  the  late  mission  of  Mr.  King  to  England;  and  has 
attempted  to  defend  the  Administration  from  any  blame  on 
account  of  its  failure.  I  never  have,  and  never  shall,  utter  a 
single  word  against  the  memory  of  that  distinguished  man.  I 
know  his  worth  too  well ;  I  am  proud  to  say  that  I  believe  I  was 
honored  with  his  friendship.  The  failure  of  the  mission  is  fairly 
to  be  attributed  to  the  neglect  of  the  Administration,  and  not 
either  to  the  illness  or  neglect  of  the  Minister.  It  is  not  because 
he  was  sick,  but  because  he  never  received  any  instructions  from 
his  Government,  that  we  have  lost  our  trade  with  the  British  West 
Indies.  The  negotiation  between  this  country  and  England  in 
relation  to  the  West  India  trade,  was  nearly  completed  by  Mr. 
Rush,  in  July,  1824.  There  was  then  but  a  single  point  of  differ- 
ence between  the  two  Governments.  This  Government  claimed 
the  right  to  have  its  productions  admitted  into  the  British  West 
Indies  upon  the  same  terms  with  those  of  the  British  colony  of 
Canada.  The  British  Government  replied,  that  they  never  could 
yield  to  such  a  demand;  and  that,  upon  the  same  principle,  they 
might  claim  to  have  the  sugar  of  the  Wrest  Indies  admitted  into 
the  ports  of  the  United  States  upon  the  same  terms  with  that 
from  Louisiana.  When  Mr.  King  left  this  country,  if  he  had 
been  instructed  to  yield  this  pretension,  as  Mr.  Gallatin  was  after- 
wards instructed  to  do,  the  treaty  would  have  been  closed,  and 
we  should,  at  this  time,  have  been  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  trade. 
Is  it  not  clear,  then,  that  the  neglect  of  the  Administration  has 
occasioned  the  failure  of  the  negotiation?  Mr.  King  was  sent 
from  this  country  early  in  the  Summer  of  1825,  and  did  not  leave 
London  until  about  the  1st  of  July,  1826.  During  the  whole 
of  that  period,  he  never  received  a  line  of  instructions  in  relation 
to  the  principal  object  of  his  mission.  Although  this  trade 
was  by  far  the  most  important  point  in  dispute  between  the  two 
Governments,  it  was  as  entirely  abandoned  as  though  a  question 
about  it  had  never  existed.  All  that  the  Administration  had  to 
say  to  Mr.  King,  was,  go  to  England,  abandon  our  former  claim, 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  305 

and  close  the  treaty;  and  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  the 
treaty  would  have  been  closed.  When  Mr.  Gallatin  afterwards 
went  to  England,  he  received  such  instructions,  but  it  was  then 
too  late.  Although  I  should  trust  but  little  to  the  friendship 
of  the  British  Government  towards  this  country,  yet  I  must  be- 
lieve, from  the  testimony  before  me,  that,  if  Mr.  King  had 
received  the  same  instructions  which  Mr.  Gallatin  afterwards 
did,  we  should  not  have  lost  the  trade. 

But  it  is  said  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  his 
last  message,  that,  in  losing  this  trade,  we  have  actually  lost 
nothing.  What  have  we  lost?  It  is  true  that  our  productions 
still  find  their  way  to  the  British  West  Indies,  through  the  neutral 
islands  and  through  Canada ;  but  the  farmers  of  Virginia,  Mary- 
land, and  Pennsylvania,  are  compelled  to  pay  the  additional 
expense  of  the  circuitous  trade,  both  in  the  reduced  price  of  the 
articles  which  we  send  to  those  markets  and  in  the  enhanced 
value  of  those  which  we  receive  in  return. 

There  is  also  now  a  most  unequal  distribution  of  these  losses 
among  different  portions  of  the  Union.  The  direct  trade  with 
Canada  is  not  prohibited;  and  thus  we  are  playing  into  the 
hands  of  the  British  Government.  It  has  been  their  policy  to 
hold  out  every  encouragement  to  this  trade,  so  that  they  may 
have  the  carriage  of  our  productions  to  their  West  Indies.  Our 
flour,  therefore,  flows  freely  and  directly  through  the  St.  Law- 
rence to  the  British  West  Indies;  and  thus,  whilst  the  farmers 
in  that  portion  of  the  Union  enjoy  all  the  benefits  of  a  direct 
trade,  those  in  every  other  portion  are  compelled  to  bear  the 
burden  of  a  trade  that  is  circuitous. 

But  I  am  not  yet  done  with  this  mission  to  England.  Mr. 
John  A.  King  went  out  with  his  father  to  London,  as  Secretary 
of  Legation.  In  this  character  he  was  entitled  to  receive,  under 
the  act  of  1810,  at  the  rate  of  $2,000  per  annum  for  his  services. 
The  illness  of  Mr.  King  prevented  him  from  remaining  in  London 
until  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Gallatin,  who  had  been  appointed  his 
successor.  He  was,  therefore,  under  the  necessity  of  leaving 
his  son  behind  him  in  charge  of  the  legation,  where  he  remained 
during  the  months  of  July  and  August,  1826,  and  then,  upon 
the  arrival  of  Mr.  Gallatin,  he  followed  his  father  to  this  country. 
LTpon  his  return  home,  the  President  of  the  United  States  allowed 
him  $4,500,  the  full  outfit  of  a  Charge  des  Affaires. 

Who  is  a  Charge  des  Affaires  under  the  laws  of  this  country? 
In  every  particular,  so  far  as  regards  his  powers,  he  is  placed 

20 


306  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

upon  the  same  footing  with  our  foreign  Ministers.  His  rank 
is  lower,  and  he  receives  but  the  one-half  of  the  outfit,  and 
one-half  of  the  salary.  Officers  of  this  grade,  from  motives 
of  economy,  have  usually  been  sent  from  this  country  to  inferior 
courts.  The  act  of  1810  expressly  provides,  that,  to  entitle  any 
Charge  des  Affaires  either  to  an  outfit  or  salary,  he  must  be 
appointed  such  by  the  President,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  Senate,  if  in  session;  if  not,  he  may  be  appointed  by  the 
President  alone,  who  is,  in  that  case,  obliged  to  submit  the 
appointment  to  the  Senate,  at  its  next  session,  for  their  advice 
and  consent.  This  act  also  contains  a  negative  provision  on  the 
subject,  and  declares  that  "  no  compensation  shall  be  allowed  to 
any  Charge  des  Affaires  who  shall  not  be  appointed  as  aforesaid." 
A  mere  Secretary  of  Legation,  such  as  John  A.  King  was,  who, 
from  accidental  circumstances,  had  been  left  in  charge  of  our 
affairs  during  an  interval  of  a  few  weeks  between  the  departure 
of  one  Minister,  and  the  arrival  of  another,  is  certainly  not  such 
a  Charge  des  Affaires  as  the  act  of  Congress  recognizes. 

Outfits  were  intended  to  enable  our  public  Ministers  and 
Charges  to  create  establishments  at  foreign  courts,  where  the 
law  intended  they  should  reside ;  but  John  A.  King  received 
his  outfit  upon  his  return  home.  Although  he  never  was  appoint- 
ed a  Charge  by  the  President,  either  with  or  without  the  consent 
of  the  Senate,  yet  he  received  a  salary  as  such,  for  sixty  days 
service,  and  an  outfit,  amounting  together  to  the  sum  of  $5,200. 
This  outfit  was  given  to  him,  not  "  on  going  from  the  United 
States,"  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  himself  in  England, 
but  upon  his  return  from  England  to  this  country.  Thus,  at 
length,  by  the  existence  of  "  safe  precedents,"  the  Administration 
have  been  brought  so  far  to  violate  the  law,  that  they  have 
allowed  an  outfit  for  returning  home,  instead  of  going  abroad. 
[Here  Mr.  Randolph  observed  that  this  was  an  infit]  It  is  but 
just  that  I  should  admit  that  the  Administration  are  not  without 
precedents  to  sanction  their  construction  of  the  law,  although 
I  do  not  believe  that  any  one  exists  which  goes  the  length  of  the 
case  I  have  brought  before  the  House.  The  existence  of  such 
precedents  shows,  in  a  more  striking  point  of  view,  the  necessity 
of  returning  to  an  economical  and  strict  administration  of  the 
Government. 

I  have  one  word  to  say  concerning  the  mission  of  Mr.  Gal- 
latin. If,  under  the  existing  laws,  our  Ministers  do  not  receive 
a  sufficient  compensation  to  support  them  abroad  (and  upon  this 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  307 

point  I  should  be  disposed  to  rely  much  upon  the  opinion  of  my 
colleague)  let  their  salaries  be  increased.  I  have  heard,  and  I 
have  given  credit  to  the  report,  that  Mr.  Gallatin  refused  to  go 
to  England,  unless  upon  the  condition  that  he  might  return  after 
one  year's  absence.  If  such  a  practice  should  prevail,  our  Minis- 
ters, in  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  existing  law,  will  receive, 
by  adding  the  outfit  to  the  salary,  $18,000,  instead  of  $9,000, 
for  one  year's  service.  This  is  far  from  being  the  greatest  evil 
which  will  flow  from  such  a  practice.  You  send  a  Minister 
abroad,  but  for  one  year;  and  as  soon  as  he  has  established  him- 
self in  the  confidence  of  the  Government  to  which  he  is  sent,  he 
is  permitted  to  return  home.  In  this  manner,  the  public  service 
may  be  seriously  injured.     I  am  against  the  practice. 

I  now  advance  to  attack  a  position  in  the  argument  of  my 
colleague,  which  I  believe  to  be  a  perfect  paradox.  He  asserted, 
and  attempted  to  prove,  that  the  patronage  of  the  Government 
did  not  tend  to  strengthen  but  rather  to  weaken  the  Administra- 
tion by  which  it  was  distributed.  If  that  gentleman's  character 
for  candor  were  not  above  suspicion,  as  I  firmly  believe  it  to  be, 
I  should  doubt  his  sincerity.  To  establish  this  position,  he  said 
that  gratitude  was  a  weaker  passion  than  self-love,  which  I 
admit ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  Administration  lost  more  by  dis- 
appointing candidates,  than  they  gained  by  their  appointment. 
But  does  not  the  gentleman  know,  that,  when  a  man  is  once 
appointed  to  office,  all  the  selfish  passions  of  his  nature  are  en- 
listed, for  the  purpose  of  retaining  it  ?  The  office-holders  are  the 
enlisted  soldiers  of  that  Administration  by  which  they  are  sus- 
tained. Their  comfortable  existence  often  depends  upon  the 
re-election  of  their  patron.  Nor  does  disappointment  long  rankle 
in  the  hearts  of  the  disappointed.  Hope  is  still  left  to  them; 
and  bearing  disappointment  with  patience,  they  know  will  present 
a  new  claim  to  office,  at  a  future  time. 

In  my  humble  judgment,  the  present  Administration  could 
not  have  proceeded  a  single  year,  with  the  least  hope  of  re-election, 
but  for  their  patronage.  This  patronage  may  have  been  used 
unwisely,  as  my  friend  from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  Letcher]  has  insin- 
uated. I  have  never  blamed  them,  I  shall  never  blame  them,  for 
adhering  to  their  friends.  Be  true  to  your  friends,  and  they  will 
be  true  to  you,  is  the  dictate  both  of  justice  and  of  sound  policy. 
I  shall  never  participate  in  abusing  the  Administration  for  re- 
membering their  friends.     If  you  go  too  much  abroad  with  this 


308  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

patronage,  for  the  purpose  of  making  new  friends,  you  will  offend 
your  old  ones,  and  make  but  very  insincere  converts. 

But  has  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  adverted  to  the 
consequences  of  his  doctrine?  There  is  no  danger  from  patron- 
age! If  so,  there  is  no  occasion  for  jealousy  on  the  part  of  the 
States,  towards  this  Government.  All  the  principles  which  actu- 
ated our  fathers,  which  made  them  watch  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment with  Argus  eyes,  for  the  purpose  of  restraining  it  within 
the  limits  of  the  Constitution,  were  utterly  vain.  For  my  own 
part,  judging  from  history,  when  this  Government  was  com- 
mencing its  operation,  and  when  its  patronage  was  comparatively 
small,  it  required  the  immense  weight  of  character  which  the 
father  of  his  country  possessed,  to  put  the  wheels  of  the  machine 
into  successful  motion.  I  think  there  was  then  more  danger 
of  a  dissolution,  than  a  consolidation  of  the  confederacy.  I 
should  then,  when  th^  words  had  some  meaning,  have  been  a 
Federalist,  rather  than  an  anti-Federalist.  I  have  been  called  a 
Federalist,  and  I  shall  never  be  ashamed  of  the  name.  The 
times  have  since  greatly  changed.  The  power  and  the  patronage 
of  this  Government  have  been  extended,  and  are  felt  in  every 
neighborhood  of  this  vast  empire.  There  is  now  infinitely  more 
danger  of  consolidation  than  of  disunion ;  and  the  States  should 
now  be  jealous  of  every  encroachment  upon  their  rights.  The 
argument  of  my  colleague  would  put  them  to  sleep.  Upon  his 
theory,  the  British  Government  must  be  very  weak;  because  it 
possesses  ten,  nay,  I  might  say  twenty-fold  the  patronage  of  this 
Government. 

I  shall  now  approach  another  branch  of  my  colleague's  argu- 
ment. I  fully  assent  to  his  general  proposition,  that  it  is  both 
our  duty  and  our  interest  to  cultivate  friendly  relations  with  every 
civilized  nation;  and  for  that  purpose  we  should  interchange 
with  them  ministers  and  diplomatic  agents.  Our  ministers,  when 
sent  to  a  foreign  court,  should  remain  there,  and  not  return 
home  at  the  end  of  the  year.  The  question  upon  which  I  would 
say,  I  should  join  issue  with  the  gentleman,  did  this  expression 
not  "  smell  of  the  shop,"  is  in  what  manner  ought  our  ministers 
to  appear  abroad?  Ours  is  the  only  pure  Republican  Govern- 
ment upon  the  earth.  All  our  habits  and  our  manners  ought 
to  be  congenial  to  the  simplicity  and  dignity  of  our  institutions. 
Among  men  of  sense  abroad,  our  ministers,  attired  in  the  style 
of  country  gentleman,  would  be  more  respectable,  and  more 
respected,  than  if  they  were  bedizened  in  all  the  colors  of  the 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  309 

rainbow.  In  every  attempt  to  ape  the  splendor  of  the  represen- 
tatives of  monarchical  Governments,  we  must  fail.  The  veriest 
menial  of  the  most  contemptible  court  in  Europe,  who  appears 
abroad  in  the  character  of  a  foreign  minister,  will  be  able  to 
eclipse  in  dress  and  in  finery,  the  representatives  of  the  American 
People. 

What  was  the  example  of  the  ancient  Romans  ?  In  the  days 
of  their  purity  and  their  greatness,  did  they  ever  attempt  to  vie 
with  the  splendor  of  the  Asiatic  despots  whom  they  subdued? 
Did  they  send  ambassadors  to  the  East,  clothed  in  gorgeous 
apparel  ?  No,  they  went  in  the  simple  dignity  of  Roman  citizens, 
clothed  with  the  majesty  and  power  of  the  Roman  People :  and 
they  carried  respect  for  the  Roman  name,  wherever  they  went. 
It  was  upon  this  model  that  Dr.  Franklin  acted,  when  he  appeared 
as  our  minister  at  the  Court  of  France,  in  the  plain  dress  of  a 
country  gentleman.  He  would  have  deserved  immortality  for 
this  act  alone.  He  set  an  example  from  which  his  successors 
ought  never  to  have  departed. 

What  is  now  the  case?  The  last  Administration  have  pre- 
scribed a  uniform  to  be  worn  by  our  foreign  Ministers.  It  con- 
sists of  a  military  coat,  covered,  and  glittering  with  gold  lace,  the 
cost  of  which  is  not  less  than  500  dollars,  and  a  chapeau  and  small 
sword,  corresponding  with  it,  in  splendor!  And  this  dress  is 
what  my  colleague  has  called  the  livery  of  the  American  People, 
which  our  ministers  ought  to  be  proud  to  wear !  I  protest  against 
this  dress  being  called  the  livery  of  the  American  People.  It  is 
not  so.  It  is  the  livery  of  the  last,  and  the  present  Administration. 
No  gentleman,  who  valued  his  standing  with  the  People  of  this 
country,  would  ever  appear  before  them  in  such  a  garb.  The 
People  of  the  United  States  do  not  even  know  that  such  a  dress 
has  been  prescribed  for  their  Ministers  abroad.  In  many  instances 
it  must  make  us  appear  ridiculous  in  the  eyes  of  foreign  nations. 
Imagine  to  yourself  a  grave  and  venerable  statesman,  who  never 
attended  a  militia  training  in  his  life,  but  who  has  been  elevated 
to  the  station  of  a  foreign  Minister,  in  consequence  of  his  civil 
attainments,  appearing  at  court,  arrayed  in  this  military  coat, 
with  a  chapeau  under  his  arm,  and  a  small  sword  dangling  at  his 
side !  Is  not  such  a  man  compelled,  by  conforming  to  this  regula- 
tion, to  render  himself  ridiculous?  "  A  military  chieftain,"  who, 
in  early  life,  had  received  his  education  at  West  Point,  not 
the  old  "  citizen  soldier "  who  resides  upon  his  farm,  misfht 
sport  a  dress  of  this  kind  with  some  degree  of  grace;  but  what 


310  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

a  ridiculous  spectacle  would  a  grave  lawyer,  or  judge,  of  sixty 
years  of  age,  present,  arrayed  in  such  a  costume?  If  the  salary 
of  our  foreign  Ministers  be  not  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  exer- 
cise that  liberal,  but  plain  hospitality,  which  belongs  to  the  charac- 
ter of  their  country,  I  say  again,  let  it  be  increased ;  but  let  them 
never  forget,  in  their  dress,  or  in  their  manners,  the  simple 
grandeur  which  belongs  to  the  character  of  Republicans.  I  trust, 
that,  ere  long,  the  days  of  Franklin  will  again  return. 

The  gentleman  has  informed  us,  that  it  is  his  opinion  we 
ought  to  be  represented  at  the  Congress  of  Tacubaya,  should  it 
ever  assemble.  Whatever  I  may  have  thought  of  the  Mission, 
I  most  heartily  approved  of  the  selection  of  the  Minister.  For 
one,  I  shall  never  sanction  any  improper  allusions  made  upon 
this  floor  to  that  gentleman,  in  relation  to  this  Mission.  There 
is  no  man  in  the  ranks  of  the  Administration,  whom  I  should 
rather  see  promoted,  ncr  is  there  any  man  among  them  more  de- 
serving of  promotion.  If  he  should  ever  again  go  to  Tacubaya, 
I  should  regret  to  see  him  in  any  dress,  but  in  that  of  an  Ameri- 
can gentleman.  In  that  costume,  he  will  infinitely  better  repre- 
sent his  own  character,  and  that  of  the  American  People,  than  if 
he  were  decked  out  in  all  the  splendid  uniform  prescribed  by  the 
Administration.  He  will  then  set  an  example  of  plainness  and 
simplicity,  which  may  be  useful  to  the  Republics  of  the  South. 

The  gentleman  has  awarded  the  laurel  crown,  to  deck  the 
brow  of  the  Military  Chieftain ;  but  has  decreed  the  civic  wreath 
to  the  statesman  ripened  .by  the  experience  of  40  years.  He 
has  informed  us,  he  was  no  prophet ;  and  I  believe  the  fates  will 
never  confirm  his  decree.  I  trust  and  believe,  that  the  People 
of  the  United  States  will  elevate  the  "  citizen  soldier  "  to  the 
supreme  magistracy  of  the  Union.  In  that  event,  and  after  he 
shall  have  been  tried  by  them,  I  venture  to  predict,  that  their 
award  will  entwine  the  civic  wreath  with  the  laurel  crown;  and 
that  Jackson  will  live  in  the  history  of  his  country,  as  the  man, 
of  the  present  age,  who  was  "  first  in  war,  first  in  peace,  and 
first  in  the  hearts  of  his  countrymen."  I  believe  that  the  annals 
of  the  human  race  will  furnish  but  few  examples  of  men,  who 
were  endowed  by  nature  with  rare  and  distinguished  military 
talents,  without,  at  the  same  time,  possessing  the  capacity  for 
civil  command.  It  would  be  easy  to  quote  a  splendid  catalogue  of 
names,  in  proof  of  this  assertion ;  but  I  shall  only  mention  those 
of  Pericles,  Cincinnatus,  Charlemagne,  Alfred,  Henry  the  4th  of 
France,  Napoleon — and,  above  all,  our  own  unequalled  Wash- 
ington. 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  RETRENCHMENT  311 

I  shall  now  descend  from  the  lofty  heights  to  which  we  have 
been  soaring,  and  make  a  few  remarks  upon  the  resolutions  which 
have  not  been  before  the  House,  for  several  days  past.  I  should 
have  been  opposed  to  their  introduction,  had  I  been  consulted 
upon  the  subject.  I  should  be  willing,  in  this  particular,  to  take 
the  sagacity  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  as  my  guide.  I 
agree  with  him,  that  it  is  not  our  business  to  originate  any  prop- 
osition, except  such  as  have  the  necessary  legislation  of  the 
country  directly  in  view.  The  party  in  this  House,  opposed  to 
the  re-election  of  the  present  President,  do  not  require  any 
caucussing  to  direct  their  conduct.  The  path  of  policy,  as  well  as 
duty,  lies  open  before  them.  They  ought  to  do  the  Legislative 
business  of  the  country,  and  then  go  home,  leaving  the  great 
question  of  the  Presidential  election  to  be  decided  by  the  Ameri- 
can People.  They  will  think  more  of  us,  if  we  should  let  it  alone. 
For  these  reasons,  I  shall  not  vote,  during  the  present  session,  in 
favor  of  considering  either  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution, 
or  the  constitutionality  of  the  old  Sedition  Law,  or  any  other  sub- 
ject which  must  necessarily  divert  our  attention  from  the  business 
of  the  nation,  to  the  politics  of  the  day.  Had  any  question  been 
taken,  I  should  not,  at  this  time,  have  even  voted  in  favor  of 
considering  the  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  plac- 
ing a  picture  of  the  battle  of  New  Orleans  in  the  Rotundo  of  the 
Capitol.  As  to  the  resolutions,  to  what  do  they  amount?  Do 
gentlemen  suppose  that  the  character  of  the  Administration  is 
to  be  tried  by  a  Committee  of  Accounts?  I  believe  that  there 
are  some  supernumerary  officers  in  the  Departments;  but  I  do 
not  think  that  the  salaries,  of  such  as  ought  to  be  retained,  are  too 
high.  In  less  than  three  years,  the  late  war  gave  rise  to  an  expen- 
diture of  $120,000,000,  beyond  the  usual  amount.  After  its 
close,  there  were  an  immense  number  of  accounts  to  be  settled, 
which  produced  a  new  organization  of  the  Departments,  to  meet 
the  necessity  of  the  case.  These  accounts  have  nearly  all  been 
liquidated ;  but  still  all  the  new  offices  and  clerkships,  which  were 
then  created,  continue  to  exist,  and  others  have  been  added.  This 
is  not  so  much  the  fault  of  the  Administration,  as  of  Congress. 
A  reduction  in  the  number  of  these  officers  and  clerks,  and  a  more 
strict  and  economical  application  of  the  different  contingent  funds, 
to  the  purposes  for  which  they  were  intended,  embrace  everything 
which  I  expect  the  committee  will  be  able  to  accomplish.  They 
possibly  may  make  some  discoveries  in  relation  to  the  past  ex- 
penditures of  the  different  contingent  funds,  which  have  not  yet 
been  brought  before  the  House. 


312  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

In  conclusion,  I  must  express  my  most  sincere  thanks  to 
the  House,  for  their  polite  attention ;  an  attention  which  I  do  not, 
at  any  time,  deserve;  much  less  at  this  time,  after  they  have 
been  exhausted  by  so  long  and  so  fatiguing  a  debate. 


REMARKS,   FEBRUARY   11,  1828, 

ON  THE  PRINTING  OF  DOCUMENTS  RELATING  TO  THE 
COURT  MARTIAL  AT  MOBILE.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  I  rise  to  express  a  sincere  hope  that  the 
House  may  promptly  decide  this  question.  I  fear,  from  the 
course  which  the  debate  has  taken,  that  we  may  again  find  our- 
selves involved  in  a  political  contest.  I  call  upon  those  gentlemen 
upon  this  floor,  if  there  be  any  such,  with  whom  my  opinion  has 
any  influence,  to  avoid  making  this  a  party  question.  The  House 
have  already  wasted  sufficient  time  upon  questions  of  that  char- 
acter. We  have  already  withdrawn  ourselves  long  enough  from 
the  public  business  of  the  nation,  for  the  purpose  of  attending 
to  the  politics  of  the  day. 

What  is  the  true,  the  intrinsic  nature  of  the  question  now 
before  the  House?  It  is  simply  this:  Shall  the  documents  be 
printed  with,  or  without,  the  report  of  the  committee?  What 
possible  difficulty  can  arise  in  answering  this  question?  No 
gentleman  has  objected  to  printing  the  report.  Whether  the 
documents  shall  be  attached  to  the  report  or  not,  both  will  be 
read  by  the  People  of  the  United  States.  Then,  why  detach 
them  from  each  other?  Let  them  go  together.  The  question, 
however,  is  one  of  so  trifling  a  character,  that  I  should  vote  in  the 
negative,  rather  than  be  instrumental  in  producing  another  pro- 
tracted party  debate. 

The  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  have  been,  in  my  opinion, 
unjustly  censured,  because  they  took  possession  of  the  documents 
before  they  were  printed.  But  was  not  the  order  of  the  House 
to  refer,  equally  powerful  with  the  order  to  print?  The  com- 
mittee had  at  least  as  much  right  to  the  possession  of  these  docu- 
ments as  the  printer.  One  gentleman  may  have  wished  that  the 
printing  might  be  the  first  step,  while  another  desired  that  the 
reference  might  have  the  precedence.  How,  then,  are  the  com- 
mittee censurable?     If  the  printing  had  been  delayed  too  long, 


Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  p.  1497. 
See  supra,  p.  275. 


1828]  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS  313 

the  House  could  and  would  have  exercised  a  control  over  their 
committee. 

If  the  House  had  wished  the  documents  to  be  printed,  with- 
out the  commentary  of  the  committee,  they  ought  to  have  passed 
an  order  for  printing  simply.  But  at  the  same  time  that  we 
ordered  the  printing,  we  sent  the  documents  to  the  committee. 
For  what  purpose  ?  Certainly  that  we  might  obtain  their  report : 
and  now  the  only  question  is,  whether  the  documents,  and  the 
report  upon  them,  shall  be  printed  together  or  separately?  I 
shall  vote  that  the  commentary  shall  accompany  the  text ;  but  yet 
I  think  it  a  matter  of  very  little  importance. 

The  only  change  which  the  committee  have  made  in  the 
order  of  the  letters,  is  to  place  them  in  the  order  of  their  dates, 
and  make  the  answer  follow  the  letter  to  which  it  is  a  reply. 
No  gentleman  can  wish  to  see  the  answer  placed  before  the  letter 
which  gave  birth  to  it.  Mr.  B.  again  expressed  a  hope  that  this 
might  not  become  a  party  question,  and  produce  a  party  debate. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  14,  1828, 

ON  INTERNAL  IMPROVEMENTS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  expressed  his  dissent  from  the  opinions 
avowed  by  the  two  gentlemen  who  had  preceded  him.  The  true 
question  ought  to  be  distinctly  stated.  The  act  of  1824  sanc- 
tioned the  policy,  not  of  immediately  entering  upon  a  plan  of 
internal  improvement,  but  of  preparing  for  it,  by  obtaining  sur- 
veys, plans,  and  estimates,  in  relation  to  the  various  roads  and 
canals,  that  were  required  throughout  the  country.  The  sum 
of  $30,000  had  been  appropriated,  not  for  a  single  year,  but 
for  a  specific  purpose,  which  purpose  had  not  yet  been  accom- 
plished. Many  surveys  were  now  in  progress,  which  were  not 
more  than  half  completed,  and  the  question  was,  whether  the 
House  would  withdraw  the  means  of  completing  them.  A  dis- 
cussion of  the  general  policy  of  the  plan,  was  out  of  place  on  an 
appropriation  bill.  Whatever  might  be  decided  as  to  carrying 
such  a  system  of  internal  improvement  into  effect,  these  surveys 
were  of  great  advantage  to  the  American  People.  Should  that 
system  never  be  adopted,  this  mass  of  information  could  not 
fail  to  be  useful.     The  constitutional  question  of  power  did  not 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  pp.  1513- 
1514. 


314  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

fairly  arise,  on  a  proposal  to  employ  the  Engineers  already  at  the 
disposal  of  the  War  Department,  in  a  particular  manner.  Should 
the  time  ever  arrive  when  we  have  more  in  the  Treasury  than  we 
know  what  to  do  with,  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  [Mr.  Barbour]  might  have  some  force.  But  the  ques- 
tion now  was,  whether  the  House  would  arrest  these  surveys? 
Mr.  B.  for  one,  would  not  do  it.  He  would  give  the  Adminis- 
tration the  sum  now  asked,  and  would  hold  them  responsible  for 
its  application. 

REMARKS,  MARCH  1,  1828, 

ON  THE  USE  OF  THE  HALL  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  was  pleased  that  the  gentleman 
from  New  Hampshire  [Mr.  Bartlett]  had  moved  the  amendment 
now  before  the  House;  but  he  felt  sorry  there  was  not  a  better 
prospect  that  it  would  prevail.  Sir,  said  Mr.  B.,  I  trust  there  is 
no  gentleman  upon  this  floor  who  would  give  any  vote  tending, 
in  the  slightest  degree,  to  evince  a  want  of  respect  for  religion, 
with  more  reluctance  than  I  should  myself.  It  is  for  this  reason 
that  I  shall  trouble  the  House  with  a  few  remarks,  explanatory 
of  the  vote  which  I  intend  to  give  in  favor  of  this  amendment. 

When  the  practice  of  using  the  Hall  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives as  a  place  for  public  worship  commenced,  it  was 
perfectly  proper.  And  why?  Because  it  was  then  necessary. 
At  that  time  there  were  but  few  churches  in  this  city,  and  they 
were  not  sufficient  to  accommodate  all  the  persons  who  desired 
to  attend  public  worship.  At  present,  the  case  is  altogether  dif- 
ferent. Many  churches  have  since  been  erected,  and  there  is 
now  no  longer  any  necessity  that  this  House  should  be  used  upon 
the  Sabbath,  for  the  purpose  of  religious  worship.  There  is  an 
abundance  of  room  in  the  different  churches  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  all  those  who  think  proper  to  attend.  Both  the  pastors 
and  the  people  of  these  churches  are  proverbially  polite  to  strang- 
ers. No  member  of  Congress  ever  enters  a  church  in  this  city, 
who  is  not  immediately  offered  a  comfortable  seat.  I  believe 
I  have  been  in  nearly  all  of  them,  and  can  therefore  testify. 


1 A  resolution  being  before  the  House  to  prohibit  the  use  of  the  hall, 
unless  otherwise  specifically  ordered,  "  for  any  other  purpose  than  the  public 
business  of  Congress,  and  religious  service  on  Sunday,"  Mr.  Bartlett  moved 
to  amend  the  resolution  by  striking  out  the  last  clause.  (Register  of  Debates, 
20  Cong,  i  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  pp.  1702-1703.) 


1828]  USE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES'  HALL  315 

that  no  necessity  now  exists  for  converting  this  Hall  into  a  place 
of  public  worship,  for  the  accommodation  of  members  of  Con- 
gress. I  have  conversed  with  some  of  the  clergy,  and  with  other 
individuals  of  this  city,  upon  the  subject,  and  they  all  expressed 
but  one  opinion,  and  that  was  in  accordance  with  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  New  Hampshire. 

From  my  own  observation,  I  cannot  say  that  I  think  this 
Hall  is  a  very  suitable  place  for  public  worship.  Can  there  be 
any  doubt  but  that  a  large  portion  of  those  who  attend  here,  come 
from  motives  of  mere  idle  curiosity  ?  A  love  of  novelty — a  de- 
sire to  see  the  Hall — attracts  such  crowds,  that  the  members  who 
attend  can  rarely  be  accommodated.  I  have  often  been  unable 
to  obtain  a  seat  upon  the  floor,  and  when  I  did,  I  have  generally 
yielded  it  up,  from  motives  of  politeness,  before  the  end  of  the 
service.  It  has  often  been  my  fate,  either  to  stand  upon  the  prom- 
enade behind  the  seat  which  you  now  occupy,  or  to  sit  upon  the 
steps  outside  of  the  bar  of  the  House.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
whole  scene  like  what  we  have  been  accustomed  to  behold  in  a 
house  of  worship.  When  we  enter  a  Church,  which  has  been 
dedicated  to  the  worship  of  the  Deity,  our  attention  is  at  once 
arrested  and  fixed  by  the  order  and  solemnity  of  everything 
which  surrounds  us.  Religious  feeling  is  the  natural  offspring 
of  such  a  place.  But  what  is  the  case  in  this  Hall  ?  I  have  often 
been  here,  when  people  were  continually  entering,  during  the 
whole  service,  and  thus  producing  continual  confusion. 

There  is  no  necessity  that  this  House  should  be  used  as  a 
place  of  worship;  and  I  feel  confident  that  the  great  cause  of 
religion  is  not  advanced,  but  injured,  by  such  a  practice.  We 
have  two  excellent  Chaplains — pious  and  eloquent  men — who 
pray  for  us  alternately  every  morning.  I  should  never  think  of 
dispensing  with  their  prayers.  These  Chaplains  both  have  re- 
spectable congregations  in  this  City.  We  now  deprive  them  of 
the  religious  services  of  their  Pastors  on  the  Sabbath,  although 
we  might  attend  the  Churches  in  which  they  officiate,  with  much 
more  comfort  and  convenience  to  ourselves,  than  we  experience 
in  this  Hall.  There  is  room  enough  for  us  all  in  the  different 
Churches,  and  we  should  all  be  welcome.  In  voting  for  this 
amendment,  therefore,  I  utterly  disclaim  the  imputation  which 
the  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  Chilton]  would  attach  to  its 
friends,  that  they  are  opposed  to  religious  worship. 

This  House  has  now  become  so  dirty,  that  I  have  recently 
seen  clouds  of  dust  rising  from  the  carpet  to  the  ceiling,   in 


316  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

such  a  manner,  as  to  obscure  the  view.  It  is  perfectly  notorious, 
that  more  dirt  is  brought  into  this  Hall  by  the  crowds  who  attend 
here  upon  Sunday,  than  during  the  whole  remainder  of  the  week. 
As  the  cause  of  religion  does  not  require  that  we  should  submit 
to  this  inconvenience,  for  one,  I  am  willing  to  close  these  doors 
upon  the  Sabbath.  I  am  glad  the  amendment  has  been  offered, 
although  I  think  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  it  will  prevail.  I 
do  not  pretend  to  be  a  prophet;  but  yet,  I  shall  venture  to  pre- 
dict, that  it  will  not  be  twelve  months  before  we  shall  feel  our- 
selves compelled  to  adopt  it. 


REMARKS,  MARCH  24,  1828, 

ON  MEADE'S  CLAIM.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  I  voted  against  the  motion  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Virginia,  [Mr.  Randolph]  to  lay  this  bill  upon  the  table ; 
because  I  believed,  that  in  a  few  minutes  its  fate  would  have  been 
finally  decided,  by  a  direct  vote  of  the  House,  upon  its  engross- 
ment. 

I  shall  not  suffer  myself  to  be  drawn  into  the  debate,  upon 
the  general  questions  involved  in  this  bill,  neither  shall  I  express 
any  opinion  in  regard  to  the  validity  of  Mr.  Meade's  claim.  The 
suggestion  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Archer] 
has  no  application  to  me ;  because  I  have  read  and  carefully  exam- 
ined all  the  documents,  connected  with  this  claim,  which  have 
been  published;  and  still  I  am  not  informed  as  to  its  nature.  I 
ought  not  therefore  to  have  formed  any  opinion  upon  the  subject. 

It  has  been  admitted  by  the  chairman  of  the  committee  who 
reported  this  bill,  [Mr.  Everett]  that  the  royal  certificate  ought 
to  have  no  effect  upon  our  decision ;  and  that  it  must  be  sustained 
by  other  documents,  before  this  claim  can  be  allowed.  It  is  cer- 
tain, that  upon  this  certificate  alone,  the  United  States  ought  not 
to  be  made  answerable  to  Mr.  Meade.  Why  then  are  not  the 
documents,  necessary  to  sustain  this  claim,  now  produced  ?  Where 
are  they  ?  In  the  possession  of  Mr.  Meade  ?  I  believe  not.  We 
are  then  about  to  provide  a  tribunal  for  the  examination  of  docu- 
ments which  may  be  in  Spain,  or  may  be,  the  Lord  knows  where. 
We  are  asked  to  call  into  existence  a  Board  of  Commissioners,  but 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  pp.  1967- 
1968.  See,  as  to  Meade's  claim,  Moore,  History  and  Digest  of  International 
Arbitrations,  V.  4502-4506. 


1828]  THE  MEADE  CLAIM  317 

whether  they  shall  ever  act  or  not,  will  depend  upon  the  contin- 
gency, whether  Mr.  Meade  will  ever  be  able  to  procure  his  vouch- 
ers. Let  these  vouchers  be  first  procured ;  let  Mr.  Meade  present 
them  to  the  House,  and  let  them  be  submitted  to  one  of  our  com- 
mittees ;  and  if  they  should  be  too  voluminous  for  its  examination, 
then  and  not  till  then  shall  I  vote  to  establish  a  Board.  It  is  the 
first  time  I  have  ever  heard  of  a  claim  sent  by  Congress  to  be 
audited,  whilst  the  vouchers  upon  which  it  rested  were  not  in  the 
possession,  and  for  any  thing  we  know,  might  never  be  in  the 
power  of  the  claimant.  Against  this  claimant  I  entertain  no 
prejudice;  on  the  contrary,  my  feelings  are  all  of  an  opposite 
character ;  but  I  am  not  willing  to  establish  a  special  commission 
to  investigate  his  claim,  before  he  has  submitted  to  us  any 
vouchers  upon  which  it  can  be  sustained. 

[Mr.  Everett  here  explained.  He  said  he  was  informed  that 
Mr.  Meade  had  a  large  mass  of  documents  in  his  possession  ready 
to  submit.  ] 

Mr.  B.  proceeded.  Sir,  said  he,  this  makes  the  case  stronger 
against  him,  than  I  had  ever  supposed.  If  he  had  the  documents 
upon  which  his  claim  is  founded,  or  any  part  of  them  in  his  posses- 
sion, why  did  he  not  submit  them  to  the  committee?  And  why- 
did  that  committee  rest  their  report  upon  the  royal  certificate 
alone,  which  is  now  admitted  to  be  insufficient  to  establish  the 
claim? 

It  has  been  said,  that  the  passage  of  this  bill,  in  its  present 
form,  will  not  commit  the  House  upon  this  claim.  I  am  far  from 
being  of  that  opinion.  The  bill  proposes  to  appoint  three  commis- 
sioners, to  examine  and  liquidate  this  claim,  and  report  such  items 
of  it  as  they  think  ought  to  be  allowed,  together  with  the  evidence. 
And  am  I  to  be  told,  that  if  we  shall  establish  a  tribunal  to  ex- 
amine and  to  decide  this  question,  that  after  they  shall  have 
reported  their  decision  to  this  House,  we  shall  be  as  free  to  act,  as 
if  there  had  been  no  such  proceedings  under  our  authority?  Will 
this  be  the  case,  after  we  shall  have  asked  and  obtained  the  opin- 
ions of  the  Attorney  General  and  two  of  the  Auditors  of  the 
Treasury?  It  is  true  we  may  reverse  their  decision  if  we  think 
proper;  but  it  is  equally  certain,  that  the  judgment  of  a  judicial 
tribunal  established  by  our  own  authority,  must  necessarily  have 
an  influence  upon  our  decision.  It  will  be  prima  facie  evidence  of 
the  justice  of  the  claim,  and  will  relieve  the  claimant  from  the 
burthen  of  proof,  and  cast  it  upon  the  United  States. 

But,  sir,  I  do  not  like  to  send  a  claim  of  this  magnitude  to 


318  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

be  decided  by  persons  whom  I  do  not  know.  The  President  may, 
in  his  discretion,  appoint  any  two  of  the  five  Auditors  of  the 
Treasury.  These  Auditors  are  all  equal  in  the  eye  of  the  law; 
but  yet,  there  are  some  of  them  upon  whose  decision  I  should  rely 
with  much  more  confidence  than  upon  that  of  others.  I  do  not 
suppose  that  the  Attorney  General  would  leave  the  duties  of  his 
station  to  audit  this  claim.  The  business  will,  therefore,  be  chiefly 
transacted  by  the  two  Auditors  who  may  be  appointed. 

I  cannot  perceive  what  the  friends  of  the  claim  expect  from 
the  establishment  of  this  tribunal,  unless  they  suppose  that  its 
decision  will  have  an  influence  upon  our  judgment.  In  what 
manner  can  it  expedite  the  final  determination  of  the  claim  ?  The 
bill  does  not  propose  that  it  shall  be  paid,  until  after  Congress, 
at  their  next  session,  shall  have  acted  upon  the  report  of  the 
Board.  Why  then  should  we  not  wait  until  the  next  session, 
when  the  vouchers,  if  they  exist,  can  be  produced  to  us;  and,  if 
then,  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  shall  not  be  able  to 
examine  and  decide  upon  them,  we  can  refer  them  to  a  Board  of 
Commissioners.  It  is  not  even  pretended  that  the  vouchers  are 
all  here  yet.  We  have  seen  none  of  them,  and  in  the  course  of 
this  long  debate,  I  have  never  heard  until  this  day,  that  any  of 
them  were  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Meade. 


REMARKS,  MARCH  27,  1828, 

ON  THE  DUTIES  ON  WOOLLENS.1 

Mr.   Mallary  thereupon  offered  the  following: 

Strike  out  of  the  2d  section  from  the  ist  to  the  6th  paragraph  inclusive, 
and  insert: 

ist.  On  all  unmanufactured  wool  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  until  the  30th 
June,  1829,  afterwards  five  per  cent,  per  annum  in  addition,  until  the  duty 
shall  amount  to  fifty  per  cent. 

2d.  On  all  manufactures  of  wool,  or  of  which  wool  shall  be  a  component 
material,  except  blankets,  worsted  stuff  goods,  bombazines,  hosiery,  caps, 
gloves,  mits,  and  bindings,  the  actual  value  of  which,  at  the  place  whence  im- 
ported, shall  not  exceed  fifty  cents  the  square  yard,  shall  be  taken  and  deemed 
to  have  cost  fifty  cents  the  square  yard,  and  charged  with  a  duty  to  be  paid 
and  collected,  of  40  per  cent,  on  such  cost,  until  the  30th  day  of  June,  1829 
— after  which  time,  five  per  cent,  per  annum  in  addition,  until  the  duty  shall 
amount  to  fifty  per  cent. 


1  Register    of    Debates,    20    Cong.    1    Sess.    1827-1828,    IV.,    part   2,    pp. 
2038-2039. 


1828]  DUTIES  ON  WOOLLENS  319 

3d.  All  manufactures  of  wool,  or  of  which  wool  shall  be  a  component 
material,  (excepting  as  aforesaid)  the  actual  value  of  which,  at  the  place 
whence  imported,  shall  exceed  fifty  cents  the  square  yard,  and  shall  not  exceed 
two  dollars  and  fifty  cents  the  square  yard,  shall  be  deemed  to  have  cost  two 
dollars  and  fifty  cents  the  square  yard,  and  charged  with  the  amount  of  duty 
on  such  cost,  and  in  the  manner  as  is  in  this  section  before  provided. 

4th.  All  manufactures  of  wool,  or  of  which  wool  shall  be  a  component 
material,  (except  as  aforesaid)  the  actual  value  of  which,  at  the  place  whence 
imported,  shall  exceed  two  dollars  and  fifty  cents,  and  not  exceed  four 
dollars  the  square  yard,  shall  be  deemed  to  have  cost  four  dollars  the  square 
yard,  and  be  charged  with  the  amount  of  duty  on  such  cost,  and  in  the 
manner  as  is  in  this  section  before  provided. 

5th.  All  manufactures  of  wool,  or  of  which  wool  shall  be  a  component 
material,  (except  as  aforesaid,)  the  actual  value  of  which,  at  the  place 
whence  imported,  shall  exceed  four  dollars  the  square  yard,  and  shall  not 
exceed  six  dollars  the  square  yard,  shall  be  taken  and  deemed  to  have  cost 
six  dollars  the  square  yard,  and  be  charged  with  the  amount  of  duty,  and 
in  the  manner  as  is  in  this  section  before  provided. 

6th.  All  manufactures  of  wool,  or  of  which  wool  is  a  component 
material,  (except  as  aforesaid,)  the  actual  value  of  which,  at  the  place 
whence  imported,  shall  exceed  six  dollars  the  square  yard,  shall  be  charged 
with  the  amount  of  duty,  and  in  the  manner  as  in  this  section  before  provided. 

Mr.  M.  supported  this  amendment  in  a  short  explanatory 
speech ;  whereupon, 

Mr.  Condict,  expressing  a  wish  that  the  amendment  just 
offered  might  be  printed,  moved  for  the  rising  of  the  committee ; 
but  withdrew  the  motion  at  the  request  of 

Mr.  Buchanan,  who  moved  to  amend  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  Mr.  Mallary,  by  striking  out  the  third,  fourth,  fifth, 
and  sixth  paragraphs  thereof,  and  also  the  following  words  from 
the  second  paragraph,  viz :  "  the  actual  value  of  which,  at  the 
place  whence  imported,  shall  not  exceed  fifty  cents  the  square 
yard,  shall  be  taken  and  deemed  to  have  cost  fifty  cents  the  square 
yard,  and  charged  with  " — and  also  the  words,  "  on  such  cost." — 
[The  purpose  of  Mr.  B.'s  amendment  was  to  strike  out  the  mini- 
mums  from  the  amendments  proposed  by  Mr.  Mallary.] 

He  then  signified  a  wish  that  the  motion  of  Mr.  Condict 
might  prevail. 


320  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

REMARKS,  MARCH  28,  1828, 

ON  THE    DUTIES  ON  WOOLLENS.1 

The  amendment  offered  to  the  bill  by  Mr.  Mallary,  Chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  yesterday,  was  read. 

The  amendment  to  the  above,  offered  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  of 
Pennsylvania,  was  then  also  read. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  I  presume  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in 
understanding  the  effect  of  the  amendment  which  I  have  offered. 
It  proposes  merely  to  strike  out  the  minimums  from  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Vermont,  [Mr.  Mallary.] 
Should  my  motion  prevail,  then  the  amendment  of  that  gentle- 
man will  contain  a  progressive  increase  of  the  present  ad  valorem 
duty  of  33 3/3  per  cent,  upon  the  importation  of  woollen  goods, 
until  it  shall  reach  50  per  cent.  During  the  first  year,  it  will  be 
40  per  cent.,  the  second  45  per  cent.,  and  the  third  year  it  will 
attain  the  limit  of  50  per  cent.  The  increase  of  ad  valorem  duty 
will  then  amount  to  16  2-3  per  cent.  The  addition  to  the  present 
duty  upon  coarse  woollen  cloths,  costing  in  a  foreign  country 
not  exceeding  33^  cents  per  square  yard,  will  be  much  greater 
than  what  I  have  stated.  It  may  be  proper,  should  my  amend- 
ment prevail,  to  make  a  discrimination  in  their  favor,  similar  to 
that  which  exists  under  the  present  law.  Should  my  motion  pre- 
vail, the  amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Vermont  will 
still  be  open  for  other  amendments.  I  have  made  this  explana- 
tion, so  that  my  purpose  may  be  clearly  understood. 

I  shall  now,  as  briefly  as  possible,  state  the  reasons  which 
have  induced  me  to  move  to  strike  out  the  minimums  from  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Vermont,  [Mr.  Mallary.]  I 
shall  not,  at  this  time,  discuss  either  the  constitutionality  or  the 
policy  of  protecting  domestic  industry  by  legislation.  I  consider 
that  these  questions  have  long  since  been  settled.  This  policy  has 
been  established,  not  under  any  particular  excitement,  not  in  high 
party  times,  but  by  all  parties,  and  at  all  times.  I  admit  that  in 
our  legislation  we  ought  not  to  be  bound  by  precedents ;  but  yet 
it  is  equally  clear  that  a  uniform  current  of  precedents,  during  a 
long  period  of  years,  furnish  the  highest  evidence  of  the  correct- 
ness of  those  principles  upon  which  they  are  founded. 

The  system  of  minimums  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 


Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  pp.  2039- 
2045. 


1828]  DUTIES  ON  WOOLLENS  321 

Vermont  is  an  entire  departure  from  the  settled  policy  of  the 
country.  This  policy  has  ever  been  to  afford  that  degree  of  pro- 
tection to  domestic  manufactures  which  would  enable  them  to 
sustain  a  fair  and  successful  competition  with  the  manufactures 
imported  from  abroad.  Our  legislation  has  ever  been  at  war 
with  direct  and  immediate  prohibition.  In  times  past,  it  has  been 
our  policy  gradually,  not  suddenly,  to  banish  foreign  manufactures 
from  our  markets.  In  this  manner,  the  commerce  employed  by 
any  particular  branch  of  foreign  manufactures  is  gradually  di- 
verted into  new  channels.  No  interest  in  the  country  sustains  a 
shock.  Even  the  price  of  articles,  under  such  a  protection,  is  but 
little  enhanced  in  the  beginning,  and  at  the  end  of  a  few  years  it 
sinks  below  the  old  standard.  We  have  acted  upon  these  prin- 
ciples since  the  origin  of  the  Federal  Government.  Since  1789, 
when  the  duty  upon  woollen  goods  was  fixed  at  5  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  the  increase  has  been  gradual  until  it  has  now  reached 
33^  per  cent. 

Let  me  ask  this  committee  what  would  be  the  effect  of  the 
minimums  recommended  by  the  Harrisburg  Convention,  and  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Vermont?  [Mr.  Mallary.]  No 
man  can  doubt  but  that  it  would  be  the  absolute,  immediate  prohi- 
bition of  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  woollen  goods  which  we 
now  import.  Much  as  gentlemen  may  have  differed  concerning 
what  would  be  the  practical  effect  of  minimums  generally,  no  one 
has  denied  that  these  minimums  would  immediately,  to  a  great 
extent,  prohibit  the  importation  of  foreign  woollens.  Under  the 
system  proposed  by  the  Harrisburg  Convention,  a  square  yard  of 
cloth  costing  fifty  cents,  or  below  that  price,  would  pay  a  duty  of 
28  cents.  If,  however,  it  should  cost  Mty-one  cents,  it  would  pay 
a  duty  of  $1  40.  Thus  one  cent  of  increase  in  the  price  would 
make  a  difference  of  $1  12,  or  more  than  150  per  cent,  in  the 
duty.  In  order  to  reach  the  second  minimum,  we  must  suddenly 
rise,  from  cloth  costing  50  cents  the  square  yard,  to  that  which 
costs  $2  50.  Each  square  yard  of  cloth,  then,  which  has  cost  any 
price  above  fifty  cents,  and  not  exceeding  $2  50,  without  regard 
to  its  quality,  must  pay  the  same  duty  of  $1  40.  If,  however,  it 
should  cost  $251,  then  it  will  fall  within  the  operation  of  the  third 
minimum,  of  $4,  and  pay  a  duty  of  $2  25.  Thus  at  this  point 
it  will  be  perceived  that  a  difference  of  one  cent  in  the  price  will 
make  a  difference  of  85  cents  in  the  duty.  There  is  a  fourth 
minimum,  which  embraces  all  cloths  costing  above  $4,  and  not 
exceeding  $6,  the  square  yard,  which  will  operate  in  a  similar 

21 


THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

manner.  Cloth  costing  more  than  $6  the  square  yard  will  pay- 
only  an  ad  valorem  duty.  Thus  it  will  be  perceived  that  the 
system  of  minimums  is  not  only  complicated  and  arbitrary  in  its 
nature,  but  it  is  calculated  to  deceive  the  people  of  the  United 
States.  And  why  ?  The  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Ver- 
mont proposes  to  increase  the  ad  valorem  duty  16  2-3  per  cent. ; 
and  to  this  point  the  public  attention  will  be  directed.  But  what 
will  be  the  effect  of  the  minimums  which  are  covered  under  the 
veil  of  obscurity?  I  shall  not  make  my  calculations  at  the  ex- 
treme points,  because  that  might  not  be  considered  fair;  but  I 
shall  take  the  intermediate  prices  between  the  minimums.  They 
will  be  cloths  costing  $1  50,  $3  25,  and  $5  per  square  yard.  Upon 
the  first  class  the  duty  would  be  increased  by  the  proposed  amend- 
ment, from  33^5,  the  present  rate,  to  84  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  I 
need  not  pursue  this  calculation  further.  Every  gentleman  can 
do  it  for  himself ;  and  he  will  discover  that  it  will  lead  to  similar 
results. 

In  my  opinion  no  combination  of  wool  growers  and  woollen 
manufacturers,  should  ever  attempt  to  dictate  a  tariff  to  the  people 
of  the  United  States.  They  would  be  more  than  men,  if  self- 
interest  did  not  prejudice  their  judgment,  and  call  forth  proposi- 
tions for  their  own  benefit,  at  the  expense  of  the  community.  The 
argument,  therefore,  that  we  should  sustain  this  proposition,  be- 
cause it  emanated  from  the  Harrisburg  Convention,  is  not  entitled 
to  much  consideration ;  and  more  especially,  as  they  have  recom- 
mended a  departure  from  the  long  settled  and  long  approved 
policy  of  the  country. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Bates,]  has  as- 
serted, if  I  understood  him  correctly,  that  the  Legislature  of  Penn- 
sylvania have  sanctioned  and  recommended  the  proposition  of  the 
Harrisburg  Convention  respecting  woollens.  In  this  he  is  entirely 
mistaken.  The  Legislature  of  that  State,  with  the  practical  wis- 
dom which  marks  its  character,  have  drawn  the  line  between  pro- 
tection and  prohibition;  and  whilst  they  have  recommended  the 
one,  they  have  denounced  the  other.  They  have  also  recom- 
mended such  a  tariff  as  will  operate  equally,  both  upon  the  rich 
and  upon  the  poor.  This  can  never  be  the  case  under  a  system 
the  principle  of  which  is  the  higher  the  price  between  any  two 
minimums,  the  lower  the  rate  of  duty.  I  shall  read  a  few  lines 
from  the  preamble  to  their  resolutions.  It  declares,  that  "  the 
best  interests  of  our  country  demand,  that  every  possible  exertion 
should  be  made  to  procure  the  passage  of  an  act  of  Congress 


1828]  DUTIES  ON  WOOLLENS  323 

imposing  such  duties  as  will  enable  our  manufacturers  to  enter 
into  fair  competition  with  foreign  manufacturers/'  And  again : 
"  the  people  of  Pennsylvania  do  not  ask  for  such  a  Tariff  as 
would  secure  to  any  one.  class,  or  to  any  section  of  the  country,  a 
monopoly.  They  want  a  system  of  protection,  which  will  extend 
its  blessings  as  well  as  its  burdens,  as  equally  as  possible,  over 
every  part  of  the  Union — to  be  uniform  in  its  operation  upon  the 
rich  as  well  as  the  poor." 

The  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Vermont,  should  it 
prevail,  will  be  an  absolute  and  immediate  prohibition  of  nearly 
all  the  foreign  woollens  which  are  worn  by  the  middle  and  poorer 
classes  of  the  people.  The  cloth  which  they  chiefly  use,  costs 
from  50  cents  to  $1  75  per  square  yard  in  England.  All  this  class 
of  foreign  woollens  will  be  immediately  excluded.  As  soon  as 
the  law  shall  begin  to  operate,  they  will  be  subjected  to  a  duty  of 
$1  12  per  square  yard.  This  prohibition  will  annually  become 
more  extensive,  because  the  second  year  the  duty  will  be  increased 
to  $1  26,  and  the  third  year  to  $1  40  the  square  yard.  When  it 
shall  attain  its  maximum,  no  cloth  can  be  imported  which  will  cost 
abroad  between  50  cents  and  $2  25  the  square  yard.  I  will  not 
turn  to  the  testimony  for  the  purpose  of  proving;  because  it  is 
within  the  recollection  of  all,  that  these  are  the  cloths  which  are 
worn  by  the  mass  of  our  fellow  citizens;  they  are  the  cloths  ex- 
clusively worn  by  the  poor.  Are  the  committee  prepared,  at  once, 
to  prohibit  all  this  class  of  woollens?  Although  I  am  willing 
to  go  to  a  reasonable  extent  in  protection,  yet  I  never  shall  con- 
sent, at  one  deadly  blow,  to  impose  such  an  immense  tax  upon  my 
constituents,  for  the  benefit  of  the  woollen  manufacturers,  as  this 
amendment  contemplates.  It  is  true,  our  country  is  capable  of 
producing  wool  in  abundance,  and  we  may  soon  erect  factories  in 
a  sufficient  number  to  supply  the  domestic  demand,  and  thus 
reduce  the  price;  but,  in  the  mean  time,  the  people  would  be 
compelled  to  pay  extravagant  prices  for  articles  of  the  first  neces- 
sity. 

Before  I  come  to  speak  more  particularly  of  the  minimums, 
I  wish  to  correct  a  mistake  into  which  gentlemen  upon  all  sides  of 
the  House  appear  to  have  fallen.  They  seem  to  think  that  the 
amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Vermont,  now  before  the 
committee,  is  the  same  with  the  Woollen  Bill  of  the  last  session. 
This  is  not  the  case.  That  bill  was  a  much  less  extravagant  and 
less  exceptionable  measure  than  the  proposition  of  the  Harrisburg 
Convention.     Had  the  Woollen  Bill  become  a  law,  it  would  have 


324  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

operated  exclusively  by  means  of  its  minimums.  It  did  not  pro- 
pose any  increase  of  ad  valorem  duty.  The  amendment  now 
before  the  committee,  whilst  it  proposes  minimums  much  more 
extravagant  in  their  operation  than  those  contained  in  that  bill, 
increases  the  rate  of  duty  from  33  J/3  to  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
The  Woollens  Bill  of  last  winter  contained  an  intermediate  mini- 
mum of  $1  50  between  its  first  minimum  of  40  cents  and  its  third 
of  $2  50;  whilst  the  proposition  now  before  us  leaps  at  once  from 
50  cents  to  $2  50.  Under  the  bill  of  last  winter,  the  average  ad 
valorem  duty  at  the  intermediate  points  between  the  minimums, 
on  cloth  costing  abroad  between  50  cents  and  2  dollars  and  50 
cents,  would  not  have  amounted  to  50  per  cent. ;  whilst  under 
this  proposition  it  will  exceed  80  per  cent.  Although  that  bill 
was  justly  considered  extravagant,  it  bears  no  comparison  with 
the  proposed  amendment. 

I  admit  that  the  testimony  before  us  is  conclusive;  that  the 
woollen  manufacturers  require  additional  protection,  and  I  am  in 
favor  of  giving  it  to  them,  in  the  ancient  ad  valorem  manner. 

I  have  another  remark  to  make  on  the  amendment  now 
before  us.  The  gentleman  from  Vermont  has  dissolved  the 
friendly  union  which  the  Harrisburg  Convention  had  established 
between  the  wool  grower  and  the  woollen  manufacturer.  Whilst 
he  has  now  proposed  to  give  the  wool  grower  an  additional  pro- 
tection of  only  20  per  cent,  ad  valorem  upon  the  importation  of 
foreign  wool,  he  has  been  urging  the  Committee  to  sustain  the 
recommendation  of  that  Convention  in  regard  to  woollens.  He  is 
willing  to  adopt  their  opinion  in  its  utmost  extent,  in  favor  of  the 
manufacturer,  whilst  he  has  abandoned  it  in  regard  to  the  wool 
grower.  Some  of  the  wool  growers  have  shown  so  much  good 
nature  throughout  this  transaction,  that  I  should  not  be  astonished 
to  hear  from  them  that  an  additional  ad  valorem  duty  of  20  per 
cent,  will  afford  them  more  protection  than  the  duty  proposed 
by  that  Convention.  I  do  not  wish  to  be  misunderstood.  I  think 
the  additional  protection  now  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Vermont,  sufficient  for  the  wool  grower;  although  it  bears  no 
proportion  to  his  proposition  in  favor  of  the  manufacturer.  It 
is  the  purpose  of  my  amendment  to  reduce  the  protection  which 
he  wishes  to  extend  to  the  manufacturer,  so  as  to  make  it  bear  a 
just  proportion  to  that  which  he  has  proposed  in  favor  of  the  wool 
grower. 

I  congratulate  the  committee  that  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  [Mr.  Storrs]  has  admitted  that  there  ought  not  to  be  a  dis- 


1828]  DUTIES  ON  WOOLLENS  325 

criminating  duty  in  favor  of  coarse  wool  costing  8  cents  per 
pound  and  under.  I  take  it  this  point  is  now  abandoned.  He 
said,  and  said  truly,  that  the  capacity  of  this  country  for  the 
production  of  wool  is  unbounded,  and  that  we  are  under  no  neces- 
sity to  import  coarse  wool  from  foreign  countries.  The  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Vermont  expressly  yields  this  point, 
about  which  we  have  heard  so  much  discussion;  because  it  pro- 
poses the  same  rate  of  duty  upon  all  wool,  whether  it  be  coarse 
or  fine,  in  proportion  to  its  value.  This  concession  brings  us 
nearer  together,  and  makes  it  more  probable,  that  a  bill  may  pass. 

I  shall  now  undertake  to  prove,  that  the  minimums,  which 
the  amendment  proposes,  will  be  premiums  for  the  perpetration  of 
fraud  and  of  perjury.  Let  us  take  a  single  example  for  the  pur- 
pose of  illustration.  The  importer  of  a  square  yard  of  cloth 
costing  fifty  cents,  will  pay  a  duty  upon  it  of  28  cents ;  but  should 
it  cost  fifty-one  cents  instead  of  fifty,  the  duty  would  be  $1  40. 
The  same  absurdity  will  be  presented  at  and  near  each  of  the 
minimum  points.  What  an  inducement,  then,  does  this  amend- 
ment present  for  the  commission  of  fraud !  If  the  importer  can, 
by  any  means,  introduce  foreign  woollens  into  this  country — 
which  cost  more  than  fifty  cents  abroad — at  that  price,  or  under 
it,  he  will  save  $112  per  yard  in  the  duty.  This  will  be  a  direct 
premium  of  1  12  on  each  yard  for  the  commission  of  fraud  and 
of  perjury.  It  presents  the  strongest  temptation  to  the  importer 
and  the  foreign  manufacturer  to  enter  into  a  collusion  for  the  pur- 
pose of  deceiving  the  custom-house  officers  with  false  invoices.  If 
successful,  upon  a  single  heavy  importation,  they  would  divide  an 
immense  spoil.  We  complain  at  present  of  fraudulent  invoices, 
below  the  real  price  of  the  article,  for  the  purpose  of  escaping  a 
portion  of  the  ad  valorem  duty.  If  such  practices  now  prevail, 
of  which,  however,  I  have  heard  no  satisfactory  evidence,  who  can 
foresee  the  frauds  and  the  perjuries  which  the  system  of  mini- 
mums  recommended  by  the  Harrisburg  Convention  will  call  into 
existence? 

Since  the  last  session  of  Congress,  I  have  made  many  in- 
quiries in  relation  to  what  would  be  the  probable  operation  of  the 
minimum  principle.  The  information  which  I  have  received,  and 
my  own  reflections  have  confirmed  me  in  the  opinion,  that  they 
will  disappoint  the  hopes  of  the  manufacturers;  unless  the  dis- 
tance between  them  should  be  so  great,  that  it  would  be  but  an 
indirect  mode  of  establishing  an  absolute  prohibition.  Such 
would  certainly  be  the  effect  of  the  minimums  proposed  by  the 


326  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

Harrisburg  Convention,  upon  a  very  large  proportion  of  woollen 
goods.  They  would  at  once  prohibit  more  than  one-half  of  all 
the  woollens  at  present  imported  into  the  country. 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  Bates]  has  enter- 
tained us  with  an  amusing  and  ingenious  conceit.  In  order  to 
illustrate  his  opinion  of  the  absurdity  of  the  bill  recommended 
by  the  committee,  he  has  imagined  a  peninsula,  at  the  isthmus  of 
which  it  was  necessary  to  erect  a  wall,  for  the  purpose  of  keep- 
ing out  the  ocean.  He  says  the  bill  of  the  committee  is  this  wall. 
It  rises  at  first  1600  inches,  then  it  sinks  down  to  32  inches,  from 
which  it  rises  perpendicularly  till  it  reaches  the  height  of  78 
inches,  from  which  it  sinks  to  40  inches — it  then  rises  100  inches, 
from  which  it  again  sinks  to  40  inches.  I  am  astonished  that 
whilst  the  gentleman  was  building  this  wall,  he  did  not  feel  the 
absurdity  of  the  minimum  system,  generally.  It  is  a  correct 
delineation  of  it.  The  best  rule  by  which  to  ascertain  the  correct- 
ness and  congruity  of  a  figure  of  speech,  is  to  suppose  the  image 
which  it  presents  were  transferred  to  the  canvass,  and  then  to 
contemplate  it  as  a  picture.  What  kind  of  a  spectacle  would  the 
mason  work  of  the  gentleman  thus  present  ?  The  system  to  which 
he  is  friendly  would  appear  still  more  ridiculous.  The  wall 
which  he  is  anxious  we  should  erect,  would  rise  at  first  5600 
inches,  then  it  would  sink  to  56  inches,  after  which  it  would  rise 
to  275  inches,  from  which  it  would  again  sink  to  56  inches; 
it  would  then  rise  td  90  inches,  from  which  it  would  again  sink 
to  56  inches.  The  wall  which  the  gentleman  desires  to  erect, 
as  well  as  that  recommended  by  the  committee,  would  leave 
the  peninsula  exposed  at  each  of  the  low  points.  The  waters 
would  there  rush  in,  and  soon  make  fatal  breaches.  The  foreign 
manufacturer  will  prepare  his  goods  so  as  to  send  them  into  this 
country  at  the  minimum  points ;  and  thus,  by  fraudulent  invoices, 
he  will  introduce  vast  quantities  of  his  manufactures,  at  a  lower 
rate  of  duty  than  our  laws  intended.  The  protection  expected 
from  minimums  will  turn  out  to  be  in  a  great  degree  vain  and 
illusory.  They  are  novel — unprecedented  expedients — which 
have  never  been  sanctioned  by  experience.  In  practice,  I  believe 
they  will  be  mere  quack  medicine ;  and  although  at  first  they  may 
impose  upon  the  people,  they  will  at  last  meet  the  fate  which  they 
merit. 

It  has  been  said  that  they  are  sanctioned  by  the  example  of 
the  cotton  minimum  of  30  cents  per  square  yard.  This  I  deny. 
There  is  a  striking  difference  between  a  single  minimum,  such  as 


1828]  DUTIES  ON  WOOLLENS  327 

exists,  in  relation  to  cotton  goods,  and  a  graduated  scale  of  mini- 
mums  rising  the  one  above  the  other,  such  as  is  now  proposed  in 
regard  to  woollens.  Where  there  is  but  one  minimum  there  can 
be  no  temptation  to  commit  fraud.  If  the  costs  be  below  that 
minimum,  you  pay  the  minimum  duty;  if  above  it,  you  pay  a  duty 
ad  valorem.  Under  the  operation  of  the  proposed  system  we 
have  seen  that,  if  you  get  one  cent  above  the  first  minimum,  it 
makes  a  difference  of  $i  12  in  the  duty.  But  if  the  cost  rises 
above  the  single  cotton  minimum,  the  article  pays  only  an  ad 
valorem  duty  of  25  per  cent.  There  is  another  strong  objection 
to  this  system.  We  are  the  representatives  of  the  people;  and 
in  passing  laws  for  their  government,  we  should  make  them  so 
plain  that  the  wayfaring  man  in  the  wilderness  could  understand 
their  provisions.  We  have  no  right  to  render  them  unintelligible. 
I  ask,  then,  how  can  it  be  expected  that  our  constituents  will 
understand  the  effect  of  these  minimums,  when  we  have  differed 
so  much  among  ourselves  as  to  their  operation? 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Storrs]  yesterday  pro- 
fessed, and  I  hope  felt,  great  solicitude  for  the  wool  growers ;  but 
the  principles  upon  which  he  argued  against  the  bill  reported  by 
the  committee,  would  prove  that  the  Woollen  bill  of  last  winter, 
which  he  supported,  would  have  afforded  the  manufacturer  no 
additional  protection.  That  bill  left  the  present  rate  of  ad 
valorem  duty  unchanged.  In  this  respect  the  present  bill  is  bet- 
ter for  the  manufacturers.  The  gentleman  has  taken  the  mini- 
mum points,  and  has  shown  that  at  the  first  of  them  the  present 
rate  of  duty  is  not  increased.  He  might  have  taken  every  point 
of  the  celebrated  Woollens  bill,  and  proved  the  same  position.  If 
the  gentleman,  instead  of  the  first  minimum  point,  had  descended 
to  the  intermediate  price  of  25  cents,  he  would  have  found  that 
the  present  rate  of  duty  was  increased  to  65  per  cent.  So,  at  the 
second  minimum,  cloth  costing  $1  the  square  yard  will  pay  a  duty 
of  about  36  per  cent,  ad  valorem;  but  when  you  descend  to  the 
intermediate  price  of  75  cents,  such  cloths  will  pay  54  per  cent, 
ad  valorem,  and  this  rate  of  duty  will  rise  still  higher  as  you 
descend  lower,  until  you  reach  the  first  minimum  of  50  cents.  I 
wish  to  exhibit  before  the  people  the  additional  protection  which 
we  intend  to  bestow  in  its  true  light.  I  wish  to  increase  the 
present  rate  of  ad  valorem  duty.  Then  the  nation  will  clearly 
understand  our  legislation;  and  we  ourselves  shall  not  be  voting 
in  the  dark.  I  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  minimums, 
unless  they  should  be  planted  so  far  apart  as  to  produce  prohibi- 


328  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

tion,  whilst  they  will  confer  no  great  benefit  upon  the  manufac- 
turers, will  deceive  the  people,  and  will  blind  the  judgment  of  this 
House. 

If  the  measure  proposed  by  the  Harrisburg  Convention 
should  be  adopted,  there  is  great  danger  that  it  may  give  birth  to 
a  system  of  smuggling  which  would  deprive  the  manufacturer  of 
all  the  encouragement  which  we  intended  to  give.  Under  that 
proposition  the  one  half  of  all  the  woollen  goods  imported  into 
the  country  would  pay  a  duty  of  more  than  ioo  per  cent.  What 
a  temptation  would  this  present?  Considering  the  vast  extent 
of  our  coast,  the  people  of  the  United  States  would  be  more  than 
men,  if  some  of  them  should  not  attempt  to  reap  the  golden  har- 
vest which  smuggling  would  present.  It  would  be  a  miracle  if 
all  should  be  so  pure,  that  none  would  yield  to  the  temptation. 
If  you  once  corrupt  the  morals  of  the  people  in  this  respect,  it 
will  be  like  the  letting  out  of  waters.  It  will  at  last  overwhelm 
all  the  protection  which  your  laws  intended  to  afford  to  domestic 
manufactures. 

If  you  wish  to  adopt  a  prohibitory  system  you  have  not 
selected  the  proper  course.  You  should  follow  the  example  of 
Napoleon.  You  should  pass  a  direct  prohibition,  and  confiscate 
and  burn  all  foreign  woollens  which  you  can  find  in  the  country. 
This  is  the  only  mode  by  which  you  can  carry  prohibitory  laws 
into  effect.  As  long  as  you  permit  goods  to  enter  the  country  at 
all,  the  higher  your  duties,  the  greater  the  temptation  to  evade 
them.  Let  us,  then,  tread  in  the  plain  path  of  our  predecessors. 
The  duty  is  now  33^3  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  Let  us  raise  it  so 
much  as  to  afford  a  fair  protection  to  the  woollen  manufacturers. 
The  people  will  then  understand  what  we  are  doing.  This  has 
ever  been  my  opinion.  I  was  prepared  to  say  much  more,  but  shall 
refrain.  I  have  performed  a  duty  which  I  owed  both  to  my 
constituents  and  myself  in  moving  to  strike  out  these  minimums. 
I  will  not  say  that  I  shall  vote  in  favor  of  no  bill  which  shall 
contain  minimums;  but  if  I  should,  I  shall  do  it  with  reluctance. 
I  have  examined  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee  with  the 
utmost  care :  I  have  taken  the  half-way  points  between  the  mini- 
mums, and  have  considered  the  effect  of  the  bill,  both  below  and 
above  them :  and  I  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion,  that  the  bill,  if 
it  could  be  fairly  executed,  would  afford  more  protection  than  an 
additional  duty  of  15  per  cent,  ad  valorem;  although  at  the  mini- 
mum points  the  increase  of  ad  valorem  duty  is  but  small.  I  shall 
not  trespass  further  upon  the  patience  of  the  committee. 


1828]  SALE  OF  PUBLIC  LANDS  329 

REMARKS,  MARCH  31,  1828, 

ON  THE  SALE   OF  CERTAIN  PUBLIC  LANDS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  was  persuaded  that  neither  his  friend  from 
Georgia,  nor  any  other  person,  could  show  the  distinction  between 
the  terms  exclusive  jurisdiction,  and  exclusive  legislation,  as  ap- 
plied to  the  acts  of  Congress.  Jurisdiction  is  the  right  to  pre- 
scribe laws,  and  whoever  has  this,  has  supreme  power.  The  two 
words  were,  in  his  judgment,  as  here  used,  precisely  synonymous. 
The  right  of  jurisdiction  was  entirely  distinct  from  the  right  of 
property.  He  could  not  think  there  was  any  need  to  send  the 
bill  back  to  the  committee  for  such  an  amendment.  He  would 
willingly  have  consented  to  substitute  the  word  legislation  for  the 
word  jurisdiction,  had  he  known  it  would  have  gratified  any 
gentleman,  but  since  the  bill  had  now  been  read  a  third  time,  he 
considered  it  improper  to  delay  its  passage  for  a  difference  be- 
tween two  words  which  were  the  same  in  substance. 

The  debate  was  further  continued  by  Messrs.  Wright,  Gil- 
mer, Mercer,  Livingston,  and  Buchanan,  when,  at  the  suggestion 
of  Mr.  Wright,  the  motion  of  Mr.  Gilmer  for  the  recommitment 
of  the  bill,  was  withdrawn,  and  the  proposed  alteration  was  made 
by  unanimous  consent  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Buchanan  briefly  explained  the  several  sections  of  the 
bill,  in  order.  The  United  States  are  proprietors  of  land,  which 
is  in  a  course  of  sale.  Certain  forts,  which  were  once  on  the 
frontier,  have  now,  by  the  progress  of  settlement,  come  to  be 
in  the  interior;  they  are  no  longer  of  any  use,  and  the  bill  is  in- 
tended to  authorize  their  sale.  The  second  section  provides  that 
the  President  may  treat  with  the  State  authorities  in  relation  to 
the  jurisdiction  over  these  forts;  and  the  third  section  allows  the 
owners,  where  private  persons,  to  release  their  title  to  the  United 
States.  He  hoped  the  gentleman  from  New  York  would  not 
require  a  whole  week  to  consider  the  bill. 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.   1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  pp.  2052, 
2053. 


330  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

SPEECH,  APRIL  1-2,  1828, 

ON  THE  TARIFF    BILL.1 

Mr.  Buchanan,  whose  speech  had  been  broken  off  by  the 
rising  of  the  committee  yesterday,  now  concluded  his  remarks 
in  reply  to  Mr.  Sprague,  in  opposition  to  the  amendment  proposed 
by  that  gentleman. 

[The  annexed  is  a  full  report  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  Speech:] 

Mr.  Chairman:  The  gentleman  from  Maine  [Mr.  Sprague] 
has  treated  the  Com.  on  Manufactures  with  too  much  severity. 
There  was  a  bitterness  of  feeling  manifested  towards  them,  in 
some  of  his  remarks,  which  I  did  not  expect  from  that  gentle- 
man. He  has  even  attempted  to  turn  them  into  ridicule  by 
comparing,  them  with  "  the  three  wise  men  of  Gotham,  who  went 
to  sea  in  a  bowl."  This  respectable  committee  have  not  only  been 
denounced  upon  this  floor;  but  I  have  been  informed,  upon  the 
best  authority,  that  thousands  of  pamphlets  are  now  on  their  way 
to  every  portion  of  the  Union,  under  the  frank  of  members  of 
Congress,  charging  them  with  insincerity,  and  with  an  intention 
to  destroy  that  interest  which  they  were  bound  to  protect. 

I  take  leave  to  tell  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  it  is  not  upon 
such  declarations,  whether  they  be  made  publicly  in  debate,  upon 
this  floor,  or  be  circulated  privately,  in  pamphlets,  by  members  of 
this  House,  throughout  the  nation,  that  the  American  people  will 
form  their  judgment.  They  will  judge  justly  and  impartially. 
They  will  look  to  actions  rather  than  words.  For  the  purpose  of 
enabling  them  to  decide  who  are  the  sincere  friends  of  domestic 
industry,  I  shall,  if  I  should  be  able  to  procure  them,  frank  two 
or  three  hundred  copies  of  the  gentleman's  speech,  in  pamphlet 
form,  into  my  district. 

In  the  remarks  which  I  intend  to  make,  I  shall  confine  myself 
strictly  to  a  reply  to  the  arguments  of  the  gentleman  from  Maine. 
I  shall  not  attempt  to  follow  him  in  his  splendid  career  of  elo- 
quence. Even  if  I  were  able,  upon  any  occasion,  to  be  eloquent, 
Heaven  defend  me  from  such  objects  as  hemp  and  molasses !  Of 
all  themes,  for  rhetorical  effect,  they  are  the  very  worst. 

The  gentleman  commenced  his  remarks  by  asserting,  that  it 
had  already  been  determined,  we  would  afford  no  additional  pro- 
tection to  wool  and  woollens;  and  that  the  provisions  of  the  bill 


Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  pp.  2089- 
21 10. 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  331 

reported  by  the  committee,  if  enacted  into  a  law,  would  ruin  both 
the  wool  grower  and  the  manufacturer.  After  having  assumed 
these  positions,  the  gentleman  proceeded  to  attack  almost  every 
other  item  of  the  bill. 

Is  the  statement  of  the  gentleman  correct,  that  the  bill  affords 
no  additional  protection  to  the  grower  and  manufacturer  of  wool  ? 
What  is  the  truth  of  the  case?  I  have  felt,  and  still  feel  anxious, 
that  a  tariff  should  pass  during  the  present  session.  No  slight 
difference  of  opinion  shall  prevent  me  from  giving  such  votes  as 
shall  be  best  calculated  to  accomplish  this  purpose.  I  gave  the 
strongest  evidence  of  such  a  disposition,  when,  a  few  days  ago,  I 
moved  to  strike  out  the  minimums  from  the  second  amendment, 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Vermont,  [Mr.  Mallary.]  Had 
my  proposition  prevailed,  fifty  per  cent,  would  have  been  added 
to  the  present  rate  of  duty  upon  woollen  goods,  costing  more 
than  thirty-three  and  a  third  cents  the  square  yard;  whilst  one 
hundred  per  cent,  would  have  been  added  to  the  duty  upon  some 
of  those  articles  costing  less  than  that  amount.  I  distinctly  de- 
clared to  the  committee  that  I  was  prepared  to  vote  for  such  a 
measure.  This  was  a  greater  increase  of  ad  valorem  duty  than 
has  ever  been  made  by  Congress  at  one  time  upon  any  other 
article.  How  was  this  proposition  received  ?  Was  there  a  single 
member  from  the  Eastern  States  willing  to  meet  the  spirit  of 
compromise  which  dictated  my  motion  ?  No,  sir.  The  language 
of  one  and  all  of  them  has  been — We  must  have  the  amendment, 
in  regard  to  woollens,  recommended  by  the  Harrisburg  Conven- 
tion, or  we  will  have  nothing.  I  did  not  expect  support  from 
the  Southern  members,  because  they  are  opposed,  in  principle,  to 
any  further  protection  to  domestic  manufactures.  Deserted  by 
both  the  East  and  the  South,  I  found  myself  in  a  slender  minority 
of  thirty  or  forty  votes;  and  thus  ended  my  attempt  to  con- 
ciliate. 

In  the  course  of  the  debate  upon  my  proposed  amendment, 
the  gentleman  from  New  York,  [Mr.  Storrs,]  to  use  a  homely 
figure,  let  the  cat  out  of  the  bag.  He  had  been  most  laboriously 
employed,  in  making  calculations,  to  ascertain  whether  the  bill 
reported  by  the  committee,  or  my  amendment,  afforded  the  greater 
protection  to  the  woollen  manufacturers.  I  am  rejoiced,  that  upon 
that  occasion,  he  descended  from  the  lofty  flight  to  which  he 
usually  soars,  to  figures;  which,  judging  from  his  observations 
some  days  ago,  I  had  thought  he  despised.  His  calculations 
brought  him  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  bill  was  better  for  the 


332  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

manufacturers  than  the  addition  of  fifty,  and,  on  some  articles, 
one  hundred  per  cent.,  to  the  present  rate  of  duty.  His  speech 
has  gone  to  the  world. 

I  shall  cheerfully  submit  to  the  public  judgment  whether  the 
bill,  although  I  dislike  the  minimum  principle  which  it  contains, 
does  not  afford  sufficient  protection  to  the  manufacturers  of 
woollens.  I  think  it  does ;  but  I  wish  to  be  distinctly  understood, 
in  relation  to  myself,  that  I  always  stand  ready,  in  a  fair  spirit, 
to  do  everything  in  my  power  to  promote  the  passage  of  a  just 
and  judicious  tariff,  which  shall  be  adequate  for  their  protection ; 
and  that,  for  the  sake  of  conciliation,  and  to  effect  this  purpose,  I 
am  willing  to  sacrifice  individual  opinion  to  a  considerable  extent. 

What,  Sir,  is  the  American  System  ?  Is  it  the  system  advo- 
cated by  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  which  would  build  up  one 
species  of  domestic  industry  at  the  expense  of  all  the  rest,  which 
would  establish  a  prohibition  and  consequent  monopoly  in  favor 
of  the  woollen  manufacturer  whilst  it  denied  all  protection  to  the 
farmer?  Certainly  not.  The  American  System  consists  in  af- 
fording equal  and  just  legislative  protection  to  all  the  great  inter- 
ests of  the  country.  It  is  no  respecter  of  persons.  It  does  not 
distinguish  between  the  farmer  who  plows  the  soil  in  Pennsyl- 
vania and  the  manufacturer  of  wool  in  New  England.  Being 
impartial,  it  embraces  all.  There  is,  in  one  respect,  a  striking  dif- 
ference between  the  farmer,  the  merchant,  and  the  manufacturer. 
The  farmer  eating  the  bread  of  toil,  but  of  independence,  scarcely 
ever  complains.  If  he  suffers,  he  suffers  in  silence;  you  rarely 
hear  him,  upon  this  floor,  asking  redress  for  his  grievances.  He 
relies  with  that  confidence  which  belongs  to  his  character  upon  the 
justice  of  his  country,  and  does  not  come  here  with  importunate 
demands.  The  case  is  different  in  regard  to  the  manufacturer  and 
the  merchant.  When  they  feel  themselves  aggrieved — when  they 
require  the  aid  of  your  legislation,  then  complaints  ring  through- 
out the  country,  from  Georgia  to  Maine.  They  never  cease  to 
ask,  until  they  obtain.  And  shall  this  contented  and  uncomplain- 
ing disposition  of  the  great  agricultural  interest,  be  used  as  an 
argument  upon  this  floor  against  affording  it  relief?     I  trust  not. 

The  gentleman  from  Maine  has  shown  himself  to  be  a  true 
disciple  of  the  Harrisburg  Convention  School.  Even  that  con- 
vention, although  the  chief  objects  of  their  regard  appeared  to 
be  wool  and  woollens,  recommended  further  protection  to  iron, 
hemp,  flax,  and  the  articles  manufactured  from  them,  and  to 
domestic  distilled  spirits.     The  gentleman  from  Maine  has  moved 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  333 

to  strike  from  the  bill  additional  duties  which  it  proposes  upon 
the  importation  of  foreign  hemp  and  molasses ;  and  in  his  speech, 
he  has  argued  against  any  additional  duties  either  upon  iron,  or 
steel,  or  flax,  or  foreign  spirits.  In  his  opinion,  therefore,  the 
American  System  can  embrace  no  other  interest  except  that  of 
the  growers  and  manufacturers  of  wool. 

[Here  Mr.  Sprague  explained.  He  said  his  observations 
upon  the  other  items,  besides  those  he  had  moved  to  strike  from 
the  bill,  were  only  intended  to  illustrate  what  would  be  their 
effect  on  the  navigating  interest.] 

Mr.  Buchanan  resumed.  I  perceive,  from  the  gentleman's 
explanation,  I  did  not  misunderstand  his  argument.  If  this  be 
the  American  System,  I  should  like  to  know  it  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible; for  then  I  shall  be  opposed  to  it.  I  venture  to  assert  that, 
if  those  with  whom  the  gentleman  from  Maine  usually  acts  upon 
this  floor  have  embraced  the  opinions  which  he  has  avowed,  it  is 
a  vain,  a  culpable  waste  of  time  to  proceed  further  with  this  dis- 
cussion. Let  the  bill  at  once  go  to  the  tomb  of  all  the  Capulets. 
If  the  New  England  manufacturer  must  be  protected,  whilst  the 
Pennsylvania  farmer  is  abandoned — if  this  be  the  American  Sys- 
tem, instead  of  being  a  mourner  at  its  funeral,  I  shall  rejoice  that 
it  has  met  the  fate  which  it  deserved,  and  has  been  consigned  to 
an  early  grave. 

The  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania  has  given  us  what,  in  my 
opinion,  is  the  correct  version  of  the  American  System.  They 
have  declared  that  "  the  best  interests  of  our  country  demand  that 
every  possible  exertion  should  be  made  to  procure  the  passage  of 
an  act  of  Congress  imposing  such  duties  as  will  enable  our  manu- 
facturers to  enter  into  fair  competition  with  foreign  manufac- 
turers, and  protect  the  farmer,  the  growers  of  hemp  and  wool, 
and  the  distiller  of  spirits  from  domestic  materials,  against  foreign 
competition.  The  people  of  Pennsylvania  do  not  ask  for  such  a 
tariff  as  would  secure  to  any  one  class,  or  to  any  section  of  the 
country,  a  monopoly.  They  want  a  system  of  protection  which 
will  extend  its  blessings,  as  well  as  its  burdens,  as  equally  as  pos- 
sible over  every  part  of  the  Union ;  to  be  uniform  in  its  operation 
upon  the  rich  as  well  as  the  poor."  They  have  therefore  in- 
structed their  Senators,  and  requested  their  Representatives,  "  to 
procure,  if  practicable,  the  establishment  of  such  a  tariff  as  will 
afford  additional  protection  to  our  domestic  manufactures,  espe- 
cially of  woollen  and  fine  cotton  goods,  glass,  and  such  other 
articles  as,  in  their  opinion,  require  the  attention  of  Congress,  so 


334  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

as  to  enable  our  citizens  fairly  to  compete  with  foreign  enterprise, 
capital,  and  experience,  and  give  encouragement  to  the  citizens  of 
the  grain-growing  States,  by  laying  an  additional  duty  upon  the 
importation  of  foreign  spirits,  flax,  china  ware,  hemp,  wool,  and 
bar  iron." 

This  resolution  speaks  a  language  which  I  am  proud  to  hear 
from  the  Legislature  of  my  native  State. 

If  it  be  the  disposition  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  this 
committee  to  strike  out  of  the  bill  iron,  hemp,  foreign  spirits  and 
molasses,  no  Representative  from  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  who 
regards  either  the  interest  or  the  wishes  of  his  constituents,  will 
dare  to  vote  for  what  would  then  remain.  The  time  has  forever 
past  when  such  a  measure  could  have  received  our  sanction.  We 
shall  have  no  more  exclusive  tariffs  for  the  benefit  of  any  one 
portion  of  the  Union.  The  tariff  of  1824  partook  much  of  this 
character;  it  contained  no  additional  duty  on  foreign  spirits  or 
molasses,  and  only  added  five  dollars  per  ton  to  the  duty  on 
foreign  hemp.  So  far  as  the  grain-growing  States  expected  to 
derive  peculiar  benefits  from  that  measure,  they  have  been,  in  a 
great  degree,  disappointed. 

What  was  the  course  which  gentlemen  pursued  in  relation 
to  the  woollen  bill  of  the  last  session?  I  endeavored  to  introduce 
into  it  a  small  protection  for  our  hemp  and  domestic  spirits.  We 
were  then  told  that  my  attempt  would  endanger  the  fate  of  the  bill ; 
that  the  period  of  the  session  was  too  late  to  introduce  amend- 
ments; and  that  if  we  would  then  extend  protection  to  the  manu- 
facturers of  wool,  a  similar  protection  should,  at  a  future  time,  be 
extended  to  the  agricultural  interest  of  the  grain-growing  States. 
My  respectable  colleague  [Mr.  Forward]  has  informed  the  com- 
mittee that  he  voted  for  the  bill  of  the  last  session  under  that 
delusion.  How  sadly  the  picture  is  now  reversed !  When  an  inter- 
est in  New  England,  which  has  been  estimated  at  40,000,000  of 
dollars,  is  at  stake,  and  is  now  about  to  sink,  as  has  been  alleged, 
for  want  of  adequate  protection,  it  seems  that  gentlemen  from 
that  portion  of  the  Union  would  rather  consign  it  to  inevitable 
destruction  than  yield  the  protection  which  the  present  bill  will 
afford  to  the  productions  of  the  Middle  and  Western  States.  If 
they  are  prepared  to  act  upon  a  policy  so  selfish,  let  them  at  once 
declare  it,  and  not  waste  weeks  upon  a  bill  which  can  never 
become  a  law. 

The  gentleman  from  Maine  endeavored  to  sustain  his  motives 
by  attempting  to  prove  that,  if  the  duties  proposed  by  the  bill 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  335 

should  be  imposed  upon  hemp  and  molasses,  it  would  injure,  nay, 
probably  destroy  the  navigation  of  the  country.  Indeed  he  pro- 
nounced its  epitaph.  It  is  gone!  Five  cents  per  gallon  upon 
molasses,  and  twenty-five  dollars  per  ton  upon  hemp  will  sink  our 
navigating  interest ;  will  sweep  our  vessels  from  the  ocean !  When 
I  compare  the  storm  of  eloquence  and  of  argument  which  the 
gentleman  has  employed  to  strike  out  hemp  and  molasses  from 
this  bill,  with  the  object  to  be  attained,  he  reminded  me — 

"  Of  ocean  into  tempest  tost 
To   waft   a   feather  or  to   drown   a   fly." 

An  additional  duty  of  five  cents  per  gallon  on  molasses  and 
twenty-five  dollars  per  ton  upon  hemp  will  consign  the  navigation 
of  the  country  to  inevitable  and  almost  immediate  destruction! 
This  is  the  kind  of  argument  which  the  gentleman  has  thought 
proper  to  address  to  the  committee. 

The  gentleman  from  Maine  has  said  that  our  navigation 
goes  abroad  unprotected  to  struggle  against  the  world;  and  he 
has  expatiated  at  length  upon  this  part  of  the  subject.  I  trust 
I  shall  be  able  to  prove,  without  fatiguing  the  committee,  that 
no  interest  belonging  to  this  or  any  other  country  ever  received  a 
more  continued  or  a  more  efficient  protection  than  the  navigation 
of  the  United  States.  I  heartily  approve  this  policy.  I  would 
not,  if  I  could,  withdraw  from  it  an  atom  of  the  protection  which 
it  now  enjoys.  I  shall  never  attempt  to  array  the  great  and  lead- 
ing interests  of  the  country  against  each  other.  I  am  neither  the 
exclusive  advocate  of  commerce,  of  manufactures,  or  of  agricul- 
ture. The  American  System  embraces  them  all.  I  am  the  advo- 
cate of  all.  When,  therefore,  I  attempt  to  show  to  the  commit- 
tee the  protection  which  has  been  extended  by  this  government  to 
its  navigation,  I  do  it  in  reply  to  the  argument  of  the  gentleman 
from  Maine,  and  not  in  a  spirit  of  hostility  to  that  important 
interest. 

In  this  attempt,  I  shall  be  greatly  assisted  by  the  remarks 
which  I  made  in  1824,  in  reply  to  a  then  distinguished  member 
of  this  House,  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  Webster.]  Although 
many  of  the  arguments  which  have  been  urged  by  the  gentleman 
from  Maine,  bear  a  striking  resemblance  to  those  to  which  I  then 
replied,  yet  I  do  not  accuse  him  of  plagiarism.  The  gentleman 
from  Massachusetts,  who  is  now  the  advocate  of  the  American 
System,  then  led  the  van  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  free  trade. 
He  was,  upon  that  occasion,  the  member  who  replied  to  the  great 


336  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

speech  which  the  present  Secretary  of  State  delivered,  in  support 
of  our  protecting  policy. 

The  act  imposing  duties  on  tonnage  was  the  third  act  which 
passed  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  It  became  a  law  on 
the  20th  July,  1789.  The  act  was  afterwards  repealed  by  the 
act  of  20th  July,  1790,  which,  however,  re-enacted  in  substance 
the  same  provisions.  Whilst  these  acts  declare  that  ships  or 
vessels  of  the  United  States,  arriving  from  any  foreign  port  or 
place,  shall  pay  a  duty  of  only  six  cents  per  ton  upon  each  entry, 
they  enact  that  all  foreign  vessels  shall  pay  a  duty  of  fifty  cents 
per  ton :  What,  then,  was  the  extent  of  this  protection  against 
foreign  competition?  For  the  purpose  of  illustration,  I  shall 
follow  the  example  of  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  and  make  my 
calculations,  throughout,  upon  a  vessel  of  three  hundred  tons 
burthen.  Under  these  laws,  the  tonnage  duty  which  such  an 
American  vessel  paid  upon  each  entry,  was  only  18  dollars,  whilst 
that  levied  upon  a  foreign  vessel,  of  the  same  burthen,  amounted 
to  150  dollars.  I  ask  the  gentleman,  is  this  no  protection?  In 
addition  to  these  discriminating  duties  in  favor  of  our  own 
tonnage,  our  laws,  from  the  origin  of  the  Federal  Government, 
have  added  10  per  cent,  to  the  rates  of  duties  upon  articles,  when 
imported  into  this  country  in  a  foreign  vessel. 

In  examining  the  debates  of  the  first  Congress,  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  these  discriminating  duties  in  favor  of  our  own  navigation, 
I  rind  they  were  strenuously  opposed — upon  the  very  principles 
which  the  gentleman  from  Maine  has  urged,  in  opposition  to 
hemp  and  iron.  It  was  then  said,  that  this  discrimination  in 
favor  of  our  navigation,  would  operate  as  a  tax  upon  the  farmer 
and  planter,  with  whose  produce  our  vessels  were  to  be  freighted, 
and  that,  for  their  benefit,  there  should  be  a  fair  competition  be- 
tween foreign  and  domestic  tonnage.  Experience  has  already 
demonstrated  the  fallacy  of  this  argument,  as  it  will  demonstrate 
that  of  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  in  case  native  hemp  and  native 
iron  should  be  protected.  If  you  select  proper  objects  for  pro- 
tection, the  inevitable  consequence  of  the  American  System  is, 
eventually  to  reduce,  not  to  increase,  prices.  Domestic  compe- 
tition will  always  ensure  this  result. 

What,  sir,  was  the  effect  of  this  legislative  protection  upon 
our  tonnage  and  navigation?  Let  Mr.  Pitkin  and  Dr.  Seybert 
answer  this  question.  Mr.  Pitkin,  in  his  View,  declares  that, 
"  these  extra  charges  on  navigation  and  commerce  of  foreign  na- 
tions, were  sufficient  to  drive  from  our  ports  the  greatest  propor- 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  337 

tion  of  the  foreign  tonnage.  All  foreign  nations  were  affected 
by  the  system  we  had  adopted  in  favor  of  the  ship  owners  in  the 
United  States.  The  diminution  of  the  foreign  tonnage  employed 
in  our  trade  was,  with  very  few  exceptions,  rapid,  regular  and 
permanent."  Dr.  Seybert,  in  his  Statistical  Annals,  bears  the  same 
testimony.  He  states  that  our  "  discriminations  operated  power- 
fully in  favor  of  our  shipping.  Vessels,  not  of  the  United  States, 
of  200  tons  burthen,  on  entering  our  ports,  paid  twenty  pounds 
sterling,  tonnage  duty,  and,  for  a  cargo  of  £2,000  sterling,  they 
paid  £15  sterling,  extra  duty,  more  than  did  the  vessels  of  the 
United  States,  of  the  same  tonnage,  and  laden  as  aforesaid. 
These  extra  charges  were  sufficient  to  drive  from  our  ports  the 
greatest  proportion  of  the  foreign  tonnage.  All  foreign  nations 
were  affected  by  the  system  we  had  adopted ;  it  seemed  to  operate 
like  magic  in  favor  of  the  ship  owners  in  the  United  States.  The 
diminution  of  the  foreign  tonnage  employed  in  our  trade,  was, 
with  very  few  exceptions,  rapid,  regular,  and  permanent." 

On  the  27th  March,  1804,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
enacted,  "  that  a  duty  of  fifty  cents  per  ton,  to  be  denominated 
'  light  money/  shall  be  levied  and  collected  on  all  ships  or  vessels 
not  of  the  United  States,"  "  to  be  levied  and  collected  in  the  same 
manner,  and  under  the  same  regulations,  as  the  tonnage  duties 
now  imposed  by  law."  This  act  increased  the  tonnage  duty  upon 
the  entry  of  foreign  vessels,  from  fifty  cents  to  one  dollar;  and 
therefore,  according  to  the  existing  laws,  whilst  American  vessels 
upon  each  entry,  pay  a  duty  of  only  six  cents  per  ton,  foreign 
vessels  pay  one  dollar.  These  acts  are  still  in  force,  and  apply 
to  the  navigation  of  all  nations  who  have  not,  either  by  treaty, 
or  otherwise,  embraced  the  offer  contained  in  the  act  of  the  3d 
March,  181 5. 

This  early  and  wise  protection,  which  operated  so  powerfully 
in  favor  of  our  foreign  tonnage,  was  still  more  decisive  in  its 
effect  upon  the  tonnage  employed  in  our  coasting  trade.  In  this 
trade,  the  voyages  from  port  to  port  of  the  United  States,  being, 
comparatively  speaking,  but  short,  the  burthen  of  fifty  cents  per 
ton  upon  each  entry  imposed  upon  foreign  vessels,  was  so  onerous, 
that,  in  its  effect,  it  soon  amounted  to  an  absolute  prohibition.  In 
this  manner,  our  own  navigation  was  put  in  the  exclusive  posses- 
sion of  the  coasting  trade,  long  before  the  act  of  181 7  declared 
"  that  no  goods,  wares,  or  merchandise  shall  be  imported,  under 
penalty  of  forfeiture,  thereof,  from  one  port  of  the  United  States, 

22 


338  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

to  another  port  of  the  United  States,  in  a  vessel  belonging  wholly 
or  in  part  to  a  subject  of  any  foreign  power." 

This  act,  which,  in  express  terms,  prohibited  foreigners  from 
all  participation  in  that  trade,  had  no  practical  effect ;  because  the 
former  discriminating  duties  had  proved  to  be  completely  prohib- 
itory. 

Whilst  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  afforded  efficient 
protection  to  the  ship  owner,  they  did  not  forget  the  ship  builder. 
The  construction  of  ships  is  a  most  important  branch  of  domestic 
manufactures,  and  one  which  has  always  been  protected  by  prohi- 
bition. American  ship  builders  have  always  enjoyed  an  exclusive 
protection.  Your  laws  very  properly  naturalize  a  foreigner  after 
a  residence  of  five  years,  but  no  length  of  time  is  sufficient  to 
naturalize  a  ship  built  in  a  foreign  country.  To  constitute  "  a 
ship  or  vessel  of  the  United  States,"  it  is  necessary,  not  only  that 
it  should  be  owned  by  a  citizen  or  citizens  thereof,  but  that  it 
should  have  been  built  within  the  same.  The  two  exceptions  to 
this  general  rule,  embrace  those  vessels  which  are  captured  by  our 
citizens  from  a  public  enemy,  and  declared  to  be  lawful  prize, 
and  those  which  are  condemned  for  a  violation  of  the  revenue 
laws.  There  never  was  a  period,  in  the  history  of  the  Federal 
Government,  when  an  American  citizen  could  purchase  from  a 
foreign  ship  builder,  a  vessel  built  in  a  foreign  country,  and  have 
her  so  naturalized  under  our  laws,  as  to  free  her  from  the  imposi- 
tion of  our  discriminating  duties.  The  ship  builder  and  the 
navigator  have  always  moved  hand  in  hand.  The  same  kind  of 
encouragement  was  afforded  to  both,  and  the  same  success  at- 
tended that  encouragement.  We  are  now  able  to  manufacture 
ships  much  cheaper,  as  I  shall  show  hereafter,  than  they  can  be 
manufactured  in  Great  Britain. 

In  the  two  first  acts  of  Congress,  to  which  I  have  referred, 
imposing  duties  on  tonnage,  there  is  a  provision  which  shows  with 
how  much  solicitude  we  regarded  the  manufacture  of  ships.  They 
contain  an  exception  in  favor  of  vessels  built  within  the  United 
States,  and  belonging  to  foreigners.  Upon  such  ships  the  ton- 
nage duty  of  fifty  cents,  exacted  upon  each  entry  of  a  foreign 
vessel,  was  reduced  to  thirty  cents.  And  yet,  after  all  the  pro- 
tection which  has  been  extended  to  our  ship  building  and  navi- 
gation, if  we  are  to  rely  upon  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
Maine,  these  great  interests  of  the  country  are  in  the  very  grasp  of 
death;  and  the  small  additional  imposts,  upon  hemp  and  iron, 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  339 

proposed  by  this  bill,  will  probably  be  the  last  ounce  which  will 
break  the  back  of  the  camel ! 

The  navigation  employed  in  our  coasting  trade  is  completely 
protected,  from  all  foreign  competition.  It  enjoys  a  monopoly. 
Would  it  then  be  unreasonable,  if  the  domestic  growers  of  hemp, 
and  manufacturers  of  iron,  should  demand  at  your  hands  a 
similar  prohibition  in  their  favor ;  so  far  as  respects  the  hemp  and 
iron  necessary  for  the  construction  and  repair  of  those  vessels 
which  are  employed  in  that  trade?  They  have  made  no  such 
demand.  We  propose  no  prohibitory  duty.  The  Committee  of 
Manufactures  have  proceeded  with  great  moderation  in  framing 
their  bill.  Indeed  I  think  they  are  justly  liable  to  censure  for  the 
slight — the  insignificant  additional  protection  of  ten  cents  per 
gallon  upon  foreign  spirits.  I  ask,  should  the  duty  be  less  upon  a 
gallon  of  foreign  spirits,  than  upon  a  gallon  of  Madeira  wine, 
which,  under  the  existing  law,  pays  one  dollar?  They  should 
both  be  taxed  as  articles  of  luxury.  If  the  rich  choose  to  indulge 
in  their  use,  let  them  pay  for  that  indulgence.  Indeed,  the  argu- 
ment is  much  stronger  in  favor  of  a  higher  duty  on  foreign  spirits, 
than  on  Madeira  wine.  The  use  of  that  wine  interferes  with  no 
domestic  production;  whilst  each  gallon  of  foreign  spirits  con- 
sumed in  the  country,  takes  the  place  of  a  gallon  domestic 
spirits  distilled  from  the  grain  of  the  farmer. 

But  I  have  digressed  from  my  subject.  Our  foreign  naviga- 
tion, like  every  other  interest  which  has  been  judiciously  selected, 
soon  required  no  protection  to  sustain  it.  By  the  year  1815,  it 
had  become  so  powerful,  that  it  was  prepared  to  contend  against 
the  navigation  of  the  world.  All  it  wanted  was  a  fair  field,  and 
the  blessing  of  Heaven  upon  the  contest.  The  infant  had  become 
a  giant,  ready  to  go  forth,  glorying  in  his  might  and  confident  of 
victory.  It  then  needed  no  discriminating  duties  for  its  protec- 
tion. It  desired  nothing  but  an  equal  competition  with  the  world. 
This  Government,  since  that  time,  has  devoted  itself  with  as 
much  anxiety  and  zeal  to  obtain  for  it  a  free  trade  with  all  nations 
as  it  had  done  to  protect  its  infancy  against  foreign  competition. 
Its  true  interest  equally  dictated  both  systems  of  policy.  By  the 
act  of  the  3d  March,  181 5,  we  declared  that  we  would  admit  into 
our  ports  the  vessels  of  every  nation,  carrying  articles  the  produce 
or  manufacture  of  such  nation,  without  levying  any  other  tonnage 
or  impost  duty  than  was  levied  on  American  vessels;  provided, 
such  nation  would  admit  into  their  ports  American  vessels,  laden 
with  American  produce  or  manufactures,  without  imposing  any 


340  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

impost  or  tonnage  duty  beyond  that  which  was  paid  by  their  own 
vessels.  This  act  proclaimed  a  challenge  to  the  world.  It  was 
the  foundation  of  all  our  future  policy  in  regard  to  navigation. 
Its  wisdom  has  been  tested  by  experience.  We  know  that  no 
nation  on  earth  can  compete  with  our  navigation  upon  equal 
terms. 

A  few  years  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  we  embarked  in 
what  was  considered  by  many  a  knight-errant  expedition,  in  favor 
of  our  navigation.  The  long  established  policy  of  Great  Britain 
had  locked  up  her  colonial  possessions,  against  the  navigation  of 
all  other  nations.  She  thought  she  had  a  right  to  maintain  this 
monopoly.  In  the  face  of  all  her  ancient  prejudices  in  favor  of 
her  own  navigation,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  passed  a 
law  in  April,  1818,  which  declared,  "  that  the  ports  of  the  United 
States  shall  be  and  remain  closed  against  every  vessel  owned 
wholly,  or  in  part,  by  a  subject  or  subjects  of  His  Britannic 
Majesty,  coming,  or  arriving  from  any  port  or  place  that  is,  or 
shall  be,  by  the  ordinary  laws  of  navigation  or  trade,  closed 
against  vessels  owned  by  citizens  of  the  United  States."  The 
provisions  of  this  act  were  considerably  extended  by  those  of  the 
supplementary  act  of  May,  1820. 

Upon  whom  did  the  navigating  interest  of  the  country  rely, 
for  achieving  a  victory  over  the  British  colonial  policy?  Upon 
the  patriotism  and  perseverance  of  the  farmers  and  planters  of 
your  country.  They  are  the  persons  who  were  chiefly  injured 
in  this  struggle.  The  British  Government  were  willing  that  there 
should  be  a  direct  trade  between  our  country  and  their  colonies ; 
but  they  insisted,  that  it  should  be  carried  on  exclusively  in  their 
own  vessels.  To  the  farmer  or  planter,  it  could  make  little  dif- 
ference, whether  his  products  were  carried  to  the  West  Indies 
in  an  English  or  an  American  vessel.  In  either  case,  they  could 
be  exchanged  for  the  same  quantity  of  the  products  of  those 
Islands.  The  contest  was  altogether  for  the  carriage ;  and  its  re- 
sult depended  chiefly  upon  the  question — whether  our  citizens,  in- 
terested in  the  trade  of  the  British  colonies,  or  those  colonists, 
could  the  longest,  and  with  the  most  fortitude,  endure  its  destruc- 
tion. I  well  recollect  the  very  able  memorial  from  Norfolk,  which 
painted,  in  glowing  colors,  the  extreme  distress  to  which  the  loss 
of  that  trade  had  given  birth.  It  declared,  that  under  the  opera- 
tion of  the  existing  laws,  their  farmers,  their  merchants,  their 
dealers  in  timber  and  lumber,  in  fact  all  classes  of  their  citizens, 
were  deprived,  in  a  great  measure,  of  their  former  resources,  and 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  341 

were,  many  of  them,  burdened  with  debts  which  they  are  unable 
to  pay.  I  also  recollect  the  very  able  and  satisfactory  report  which 
you,  [Mr.  Newton,]  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Com- 
merce, presented  upon  the  subject.  It  convinced  me,  that  the 
policy  which  we  were  then  pursuing,  was  correct.  At  length  the 
farmers — and  other  citizens  of  this  country — at  the  expense  of 
much  pecuniary  suffering,  extorted  from  the  British  Government 
the  act  of  Parliament  of  the  24th  June,  1822.  By  this  act,  Great 
Britain  surrendered  her  monopoly,  and  opened  her  West  India 
trade  to  our  navigation. 

In  what  manner  have  we  now  lost  that  trade?  The  gentle- 
man from  Maine  has  thought  proper  to  introduce  this  question 
into  the  debate,  and  I  shall  follow  him  in  my  reply.  The  patience 
and  the  perseverance  of  our  agriculturists  compelled  Great  Britain 
to  open  her  colonial  ports.  How  have  they  been  closed?  The 
gentleman  casts  the  blame  altogether  upon  the  British  Govern- 
ment. I  do  not  stand  here  as  the  apologist  of  that  Government. 
It  is  probable  they  were  glad  to  be  furnished  with  so  good  a 
pretext  for  closing  their  colonial  ports  against  our  navigation,  as 
the  conduct  of  the  present  Administration  afforded. 

But,  sir,  is  it  not  an  historical  fact — for  the  truth  of  which 
I  appeal  to  every  gentleman  upon  this  floor,  that  Great  Britain,  in 
1824,  offered  to  regulate,  by  treaty,  our  trade  with  her  colonies, 
which  she  had  opened  in  1822,  by  legislation  ?  Were  not  the  terms 
which  she  proposed  perfectly  satisfactory  to  our  government, 
with  a  single  exception  ?  We  insisted  that  our  productions  should 
be  admitted  into  the  British  West  Indies,  upon  the  same  terms 
with  those  of  the  British  colony  of  Canada.  Great  Britain  re- 
sisted this  attempt  upon  our  part,  to  dictate  the  manner  in  which 
she  should  regulate  her  own  trade,  between  her  own  colonies. 
She  said,  that  to  abandon  this  powder  would  be  a  forfeiture  of  her 
independence.  Upon  this  point,  and  this  alone,  was  the  negotia- 
tion suspended.  It  was  in  our  power,  at  any  time  within  two 
years,  to  have  nailed  Great  Britain  fast  to  the  counter.  She  could 
not,  in  the  face  of  the  world,  have  violated  her  plighted  faith, 
without  losing  her  character  among  the  nations.  Yet  this  offer 
of  a  treaty  (which,  it  is  now  admitted  by  all,  we  ought  to  have 
accepted)  was  not  accepted,  until  the  time  had  passed  when  it 
was  in  our  power  to  obtain  it. 

What  have  been  the  consequences  of  the  loss  of  our  direct 
trade  with  the  West  Indies  ?  The  President  of  the  United  States, 
in  his  last  annual  message,  has  told  us,  that  neither  our  com- 


342  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

merce,  nor  our  navigation,  nor  our  revenue,  has  suffered  in  conse- 
quence of  its  loss.  He  has  not  informed  us — he  could  not  inform 
us — that  our  agriculture  has  not  suffered.  What  is  the  present 
course  of  this  trade?  The  owners  of  the  agricultural  products 
which  are  carried  to  the  West  Indies  pay  two  freights,  instead  of 
one.  This  is  also  the  case  in  regard  to  the  productions  of  the 
West  Indies  which  are  brought  to  this  country.  An  American 
vessel,  laden  with  flour,  proceeds  to  one  of  the  neutral  islands. 
She  thus  earns  her  freight.  Her  cargo  is  landed,  is  subjected  to 
a  mercantile  profit.  A  British  vessel  then  arrives,  and  carries  the 
same  cargo  from  the  neutral  to  the  British  island;  and  thus  she 
earns  her  freight  also.  There  are  two  voyages  instead  of  one, 
both  going  to  and  returning  from  the  British  West  Indies.  Thus 
both  British  and  American  navigation  flourish.  Each  enjoys  the 
same,  or  nearly  the  same  profits,  to  which  both  are  entitled ;  and 
the  agricultural  interest  pays  the  whole  additional  expense.  Well 
might  the  President  inform  us  our  navigation  had  not  been 
injured  by  the  loss  of  the  direct  trade.  I  am  opposed  to  this 
trade,  as  it  is  now  conducted.  It  is  a  heavy  burthen  upon  agricul- 
ture. I  trust  that  a  Minister  may  speedily  be  sent  to  England,  and 
that  we  may  ascertain  whether  it  is  the  intention  of  Great  Britain 
thus  for  ever  to  shackle  this  trade.  If  it  be  so,  I  care  not  what 
administration  may  be  in  power,  it  shall  be  sustained  by  me,  in 
any  reasonable  attempt  to  obtain  justice  from  the  government  of 
that  country. 

Some  time  ago,  I  received  a  letter  from  a  gentleman  in  Vir- 
ginia, which  contained  much  able  argument  and  valuable  informa- 
tion. Among  other  things,  it  refers  to  the  opinion  of  a  distin- 
guished gentleman,  late  our  minister  to  England,  but  now  no 
more,  upon  the  subject  of  foreign  spirits  and  molasses.  That 
gentleman  (of  whom  I  never  have  spoken,  and  never  shall  speak, 
but  in  terms  of  the  highest  respect,)  when  the  bill  concerning 
navigation  was  before  the  Senate,  which  was  afterwards  enacted 
into  a  law,  on  the  18th  of  April,  1818,  made  the  following  re- 
marks :  "  We  have  the  power,  and  hereafter  it  may  become  our 
policy,  as  it  is  that  of  other  countries,  to  resort  to  a  regulation,  the 
effect  of  which  would  go  far  to  balance  any  disadvantage  arising 
from  the  loss  of  the  English  colonial  markets.  We  import  annu- 
ally upwards  of  six  millions  gallons  of  rum,  more  than  half  of 
which  comes  from  the  English  colonies.  We  also  import,  every 
year,  near  seven  millions  of  gallons  of  molasses ;  as  every  gallon 
of  molasses  yields,  by  distillation,  a  gallon  of  rum,  the  rum  im- 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  343 

ported,  added  to  that  distilled  from  imported  molasses,  is  probably 
equal  to  twelve  millions  of  gallons,  which  enormous  quantity  is 
chiefly  consumed  by  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

"  If  the  importation  of  rum  and  molasses  for  distillation  be 
prohibited,  it  would  require  four  millions  of  bushels  of  grain  for 
distillation,  to  supply  an  equal  quantity  of  ardent  spirits,  and  in 
this  way,  our  agriculture  would  be  indemnified  for  the  loss  it 
might  suffer  by  losing  the  English  colonial  markets." 

We  have  not  lost  the  English  colonial  markets,  but  we  have 
lost  our  direct  trade  with  them.  The  event  which  Mr.  King 
apprehended,  has  now,  in  a  considerable  degree,  become  matter 
of  history.  The  contingency  has  happened;  and  yet  what  have 
the  Committee  on  Manufactures  recommended  ?  The  prohibition 
of  foreign  spirits  and  molasses,  which  Mr.  King  suggested  ?  No ! 
merely  an  addition  of  ten  cents  per  gallon  to  the  present  duty 
paid  by  foreign  spirits,  and  five  cts.  per  gallon  to  the  duty  paid 
by  molasses ;  and  yet,  if  we  are  to  yield  our  faith  to  the  arguments 
of  the  gentleman,  this  increase  of  duty  will,  in  its  consequences, 
destroy  our  fisheries,  and  drive  our  fishermen  from  the  ocean. 

I  shall  mention  one  other  example,  to  show  with  what  care 
this  government  has  fostered  its  navigation.  France,  immedi- 
ately after  she  was  freed  from  the  long  and  desolating  wars  in 
which  she  had  been  engaged,  turned  her  attention  towards  her 
commercial  marine.  It  was  a  principal  object  of  her  policy  to 
increase  her  tonnage.  For  this  purpose,  she  established  discrim- 
inating duties  in  favor  of  cotton,  tobacco,  and  potashes,  imported 
in  her  own  vessels,  which  were  equivalent  to  a  tonnage  duty  of 
from  $i 8  to  $21  per  ton.  On  the  15th  May,  1820,  we  passed  an 
act  which  imposed  a  countervailing  duty  of  $18  per  ton  upon 
all  French  vessels  entering  the  ports  of  the  United  States.  The 
consequence  of  this  measure  was,  the  suspension,  in  a  great  degree, 
of  the  direct  trade  between  this  country  and  France.  Who  chiefly 
suffered  by  this  suspension?  The  tobacco  and  cotton  planters 
of  the  South.  But  they  suffered  with  patience,  because  they  thus 
expected  to  acquire  for  our  navigation  the  carrying  trade  to 
France.  We  were  successful,  and  in  June,  1822,  France  yielded 
to  our  demands ;  and  the  consequence  has  been,  that  our  navigation 
has  acquired  nearly  the  whole  carrying  trade  between  the  two 
countries.  Give  our  navigation  an  equal  chance,  a  free  and  an 
open  sea,  and  we  know  that  we  can  maintain  a  successful  competi- 
tion against  the  world.  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  after 
this  review  of  our  legislation,  whether  he  will  now  say  that  our 


344  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

navigation  has  received  no  protection?  We  protected  its  infancy 
by  our  legislation;  and  after  it  had  risen  superior  to  all  foreign 
competition,  we  have  exerted  all  our  energies  to  obtain  for  it  a 
free  trade,  well  knowing  that  upon  equal  terms,  it  must  and  would 
be  successful  against  the  navigation  of  any  other  nation. 

Let  us  now,  sir,  examine  the  calculation  which  the  gentleman 
has  made  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  our  navigation  cannot 
sustain  the  additional  duties  proposed  by  this  bill,  upon  foreign 
hemp  and  foreign  iron.  The  Committee  on  Manufactures,  before 
they  reported  their  bill  to  this  House  in  January,  1821,  addressed 
certain  questions  to  the  mercantile  society  of  New  York;  two  of 
which,  with  the  answers,  I  shall  take  leave  to  read  to  the  com- 
mittee. 

Question.  What  is  the  cost  of  a  British  ship,  of  say  300  tons?  What 
of  an  American  of  the  same  force  and  burthen;  and,  generally,  the  differ- 
ence in  the  price  of  shipping,  by  the  ton,  in  each  country,  completely 
equipped  ? 

Answer.  A  British  ship  of  300  tons,  equipped  for  sea,  will  cost  $24,000, 
or  $80  per  ton.  An  American  ship  of  the  same  quality,  will  cost  $18,000, 
or  60  dollars  per  ton. 

Question.  The  quantity  of  iron  and  cordage  to  the  100  tons  of 
shipping? 

Answer.  It  will  require  four  tons  of  iron,  1,500  pounds  of  copper 
bolts,  4%  tons  cordage,  and  20  bolts  of  duck,  to  the  100  tons. 

In  answer  to  another  question,  the  same  society  state,  that 
"  foreign  vessels  would  not  have  a  preference,  in  our  ports,  over 
American  built  vessels,  unless  at  a  reduction  in  freight  of  25  per 
cent,  or  advantages  equivalent,  at  the  port  of  destination." 

When  the  gentleman  was  estimating  the  additional  tax, 
which  he  alleges  this  bill  would  impose  upon  the  navigation  of 
the  country,  and  was  comparing  it  with  the  duties  imposed  by  the 
laws  of  Great  Britain  upon  the  importation  of  hemp  and  of  iron, 
and  their  manufactures,  he  must  have  forgotten  that  timber  was 
the  great  and  primary  material  which  entered  into  the  construc- 
tion of  a  ship.  In  England  they  are  compelled  to  purchase  this 
article  in  foreign  countries,  and  to  pay  the  heavy  expense  of  its 
transportation,  whilst  we  possess  it  in  abundance  at  home.  This 
is  the  reason  why  a  ship  of  300  tons,  in  1821,  could  have  been 
built  in  this  country  for  the  sum  of  18,000  dollars;  whilst  the 
same  vessel  in  England  would  have  cost  24,000  dollars.  The 
gentleman  has  stated  a  valuable  fact  to  the  committee,  in  relation 
to  the  present  cost  of  ship  building.  He  has  informed  us  that 
American  vessels  are  built  at  the  present  time  for  50  dollars  per 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  345 

ton.  If  this  information  be  correct,  then  the  difference  between 
the  cost  of  two  vessels  of  the  same  quality,  and  of  300  tons 
burthen,  would  amount  to  9,000  dollars.  What  then  are  we  to 
think  of  an  argument,  intended  to  prove  that  the  addition  of 
378  dollars  to  the  cost  of  an  American  vessel  of  300  tons  burthen, 
may  probably  break  down  our  navigation,  and  drive  our  flag 
from  the  ocean?  A  ship  in  England  costs  sixty  per  cent,  more 
than  a  ship  in  this  country.  If  the  additional  duties  proposed 
by  this  bill  should  even  become  a  permanent  tax  upon  our  ship 
building,  it  would  amount  to  only  2^4  per  cent,  upon  the  first 
cost  of  the  vessel.  This  would  never  be  felt  by  our  navigation. 
It  would  be  but  a  drop  compared  with  the  ocean.  It  is  both 
ungrateful  and  unjust  for  the  navigation  of  the  country,  after 
it  has  been  uniformly  sustained  by  the  agricultural  interest,  to 
turn  round  upon  its  benefactor  and  say,  that,  although  you  have 
protected  us  in  infancy,  and  have  watched  over  our  manhood 
with  parental  tenderness  and  solicitude,  yet  we  will  not,  in  the  day 
of  your  distress,  grant  you  the  trifling  boon  which  you  now 
solicit. 

But  I  cannot  concur  in  opinion  with  the  gentleman,  that  the 
proposed  increase  of  duty  upon  the  hemp  and  iron,  and  their 
manufactures,  will,  after  a  short  time,  be  any  tax  upon  our 
navigation.  On  the  contrary,  in  a  very  few  years,  it  will  reduce 
the  price  of  those  articles  below  their  present  value.  Upon  what 
principle  does  our  protecting  policy  rest  ?  It  is  this  :  select  proper 
objects,  and  protect  their  growth,  or  their  manufacture,  whilst  in 
infancy,  against  destruction  from  foreign  competition,  and  Amer- 
ican skill  and  American  industry  will  soon  furnish  them  to  the 
consumer  cheaper  than  they  can  be  procured  from  abroad.  This 
principle  lies  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  tariff  system.  Aban- 
don it,  and  the  whole  fabric  is  destroyed.  What  would  the 
gentleman  from  Maine  say  to  me,  if  I  were  to  turn  the  argument 
which  he  has  urged  in  opposition  to  hemp  and  iron,  against  wool 
and  woollens?  If  I  were  thus  disposed,  I  might  say  you  have 
proposed  a  duty  upon  these  articles,  which  will  greatly  increase 
the  price  of  woollen  cloth.  The  agricultural  interest  of  the 
country  is  at  present  very  much  depressed.  The  laboring  man 
who  now  earns  his  daily  bread  by  his  daily  toil,  can  scarcely  ac- 
quire wherewithal  to  clothe  his  wife  and  children,  and  protect 
them  from  the  winds  of  Heaven.  His  family  are  already  suffer- 
ing under  the  pressure  of  want,  and  will  you  grind  him  to  the 
dust,  by  taxing  the  clothing  which  covers  his  nakedness,  50  per 


346  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

cent,  for  the  benefit  of  the  wool  grower  and  woollen  manufac- 
turer? If  I  were  to  use  such  an  argument,  and  afterwards  pro- 
fess to  be  a  tariff  man,  I  should  expect  no  credit  for  sincerity. 
In  voting  additional  protection  to  wool  and  woollens,  I  shall  act 
upon  the  general  principles  of  the  system.  The  growth  of  wool 
is  congenial  to  our  country,  and  if  we  should  afford  sufficient 
encouragement  to  its  manufacture,  in  the  course  of  a  very  short 
time,  the  industry  and  enterprise  of  our  citizens  will  furnish 
woollen  cloth  of  a  better  quality,  and  at  a  cheaper  rate,  to  the 
consumer,  than  we  pay  at  present.  The  much  abused  Committee 
of  Domestic  Manufactures,  in  the  testimony  which  they  have 
presented  with  their  report,  have  furnished  to  this  House  and  the 
Nation  a  most  cheering  fact  in  relation  to  our  progress  in  the 
woollen  manufacture.  The  manufacturers  themselves  have  testi- 
fied, that  they  can  convert  wool  into  cloth  at  as  cheap  a  rate  as 
they  can  do  it  in  England.  The  only  difference  against  them, 
consists  in  the  higher  price  of  wool  in  this  country  than  in  Great 
Britain.  This  inequality  will  not  long  exist.  Our  country  is 
boundless  in  its  capacity  for  the  production  of  wool.  Give  us 
proper  protection,  and  we  can  produce  wool  enough  to  clothe  the 
world.  The  laborer  will,  therefore,  eventually  pay  less  for  his 
clothing,  not  more.  In  the  quantum  of  protection  to  woollens,  all 
I  desire  is,  that  the  duty  may  not  suddenly  be  raised  to  such  a 
standard,  as  will  produce  a  great  appreciation  of  price,  and  an 
immediate  pressure  upon  the  country.  These  are  the  principles 
upon  which  I  shall  act. 

If  these  principles  be  correct,  in  regard  to  wool  and  woollens, 
I  would  ask  the  gentleman  from  Maine  why  they  do  not  apply, 
with  equal  force,  to  the  manufacture  of  iron  and  the  growth  of 
hemp  ?  Can  it  be  for  one  moment  doubted,  that  under  a  proper 
protection,  hemp  and  iron  can  be  produced  cheaper  at  home  than 
they  can  be  procured  from  abroad  ?  We  have  mountains  of  iron 
ore  in  many  portions  of  the  Union,  planted  by  the  hand  of  nature, 
near  to  mountains  of  coal.  Our  water-power  is  unlimited;  we 
have  timber  in  abundance:  we  possess  the  capital,  the  skill,  and 
the  enterprise.  Can  any  gentleman  then  contend,  that  the  Amer- 
ican manufacturer  of  iron  will  not  soon  furnish  it  to  the  con- 
sumer at  a  lower  price  than  it  can  be  transported  to  us  from  a 
distant  country?  That  this  will  be  the  event,  and  that  at  no 
distant  period,  I  believe  as  firmly  as  I  do  in  my  own  existence. 
To  doubt  it,  would  be  to  cast  a  reflection  upon  the  character  of  my 
countrymen.    The  additional  duty  which  the  present  bill  proposes 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  347 

upon  iron,  is  a  mere  trifle,  and  will  never  be  felt  by  the  consumer. 
Then,  in  regard  to  hemp,  need  I  say  anything?  It  has  now 
been  clearly  ascertained,  from  the  highest  authority,  that  Amer- 
ican water-rotted  hemp  is  fully  equal,  if  not  superior,  to  that  of 
Russia.  This  problem  has  been  solved,  and  I  feel  it  to  be  a  high 
honor,  that  I  have  been  an  humble  instrument  in  assisting  to  dispel 
the  delusion  which  had  existed  in  regard  to  American  hemp.  In 
the  year  1824,  I  got  one  of  my  constituents  to  water- rot  between 
7  and  8  hundred  weight  of  hemp.  It  was  received  at  the 
navy  yard  in  Philadelphia,  by  order  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy, 
and  the  Agent  there,  at  once,  pronounced  it  to  be  equal  to  the  best 
water-rotted  Russia  hemp,  and  paid  for  it  accordingly.  It  was 
manufactured  and  sent  to  the  Mediterranean,  and  after  an  actual 
experiment  of  considerable  length,  no  doubt  is  now  entertained 
by  the  Commissioners  of  the  Navy,  but  that  it  will  prove  to  be 
fully  equal,  in  all  respects,  to  the  best  Russia  hemp.  Indeed,  in 
one  respect,  the  report  which  we  have  received  from  the  Navy 
Department,  awards  to  American  hemp  a  decided  preference.  It 
declares  that  "  the  Russian  hemp  is  certainly  liable  to  greater 
injury  from  transportation,  and  that  it  does  sustain  more  or  less 
injury  in  its  transportation  from  Russia  to  our  ports,  is  believed 
to  be  an  unquestionable  fact."  It  often  becomes  musty  in  the 
hold  of  the  vessel,  in  consequence  of  the  great  length  of  the 
voyage. 

But,  says  the  gentleman,  why  is  there  no  American  water- 
rotted  hemp  in  the  market?  The  answer  is,  that  the  prejudices 
which  have  heretofore  existed  against  it,  in  the  public  mind,  have 
not  yet  been  dispelled.  Our  farmers  have  not  hitherto  been 
able  to  dispose  of  it  at  the  same  price  which  Russia  hemp  has 
borne  in  the  market.  Besides,  they  require  some  encouragement 
to  induce  them  to  abandon  their  ancient  method  of  dew-rotting, 
and  to  take  to  water-rotting.  For  this  reason,  the  additional  duty 
of  25  dollars  per  ton  upon  this  article  has  very  properly  been  made 
progressive,  rising  slowly,  to  give  our  farmers  time  to  perfect 
themselves  in  the  business,  and  to  grow  the  article  in  sufficient 
quantities  for  the  supply  of  our  public  and  private  ships. 

I  shall  say  nothing  of  the  capacity  of  this  country  to  produce 
hemp.  There  is  a  single  State  of  this  Union — a  State  whose 
soil  is  naturally  more  fertile,  in  my  opinion,  than  that  of  any 
other,  of  which  I  am  reminded  by  the  gentleman  now  in  my  eye, 
[Mr.  Clark,  of  Kentucky,]  capable  of  producing  hemp  in  abund- 
ance to  supply  the  demands  of  the  world. 


348  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

I  need  not  trouble  the  committee  with  any  remarks  in  regard 
to  flax ;  as  they  would  only  be  a  repetition  of  what  I  have  already 
said,  concerning  the  cultivation  and  production  of  hemp. 

The  gentleman  from  Maine  has  used  a  most  astonishing 
argument  against  any  further  protection  to  hemp  and  flax,  and 
iron.  We  ought  not  further  to  encourage  our  farmers  to  grow 
flax  and  hemp,  nor  our  manufacturers  to  produce  iron.  And 
why?  Because  you  will  thus  deprive  the  navigating  interest  of 
the  freight  which  they  earn,  by  carrying  these  articles  from  Rus- 
sia to  this  country.  Can  the  gentleman  be  serious  in  contending 
that,  for  the  sake  of  affording  freight  to  the  ship-owners,  we 
ought  to  depend  upon  a  foreign  country  for  a  supply  of  these 
articles?  This  argument  strikes  at  the  root  of  the  whole  Amer- 
ican System.  Upon  this  same  principle  we  ought  not  to  manu- 
facture any  article  whatever  at  home,  because  this  will  deprive 
our  ships  of  the  carriage  of  it  from  abroad.  This  principle,  had 
it  been  adopted  in  practice,  would  have  left  us  where  we  were 
at  the  close  of  the  American  Revolution.  We  should  still  have 
been  dependent  upon  foreign  nations  for  articles  of  the  first 
necessity.  This  argument  amounts  to  a  proclamation  of  war, 
by  our  navigation,  against  the  agriculture  and  manufactures  of 
the  country.  You  must  not  produce,  because  we  will  then  lose 
the  carriage,  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  argument.  Am 
I  then  to  be  seriously  told,  that  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging 
our  ship-owners,  our  farmers  ought  to  be  deprived  of  the  mar- 
kets of  their  own  country,  for  those  agricultural  productions 
which  they  can  supply  in  abundance?  I  did  not  expect  to  have 
heard  such  an  argument  upon  this  floor. 

By  encouraging  domestic  industry,  whether  it  be  applied  to 
agriculture  or  manufactures,  you  promote  the  best  interests  of 
your  navigation.  You  furnish  it  with  domestic  exports  to  scatter 
over  the  world.  This  is  the  true  American  System.  It  protects 
all  interests ;  it  abandons  none.  It  never  arrays  one  against  an- 
other. Upon  the  principles  of  the  gentleman,  we  ought  to  sacri- 
fice all  the  other  interests  of  the  country  to  promote  our  naviga- 
tion.    This  is  asking  too  much. 

The  gentleman  from  Maine  seems  to  apprehend  great  danger 
to  the  navy,  from  the  passage  of  this  bill.  He  appears  to  think  it 
will  fall  with  so  much  oppression  upon  our  navigation  and  fish- 
eries, that  these  nurseries  of  seamen  for  the  navy  may  be  greatly 
injured,  if  not  altogether  destroyed. 

In  regard  to  the  value  and  importance  of  a  navy  to  this  coun- 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  349 

try,  I  cordially  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Maine.  Every 
prejudice  of  my  youth  was  enlisted  in  its  favor,  and  the  judgment 
of  riper  years  has  strengthened  and  confirmed  those  early  impres- 
sions. It  is  the  surest  bond  of  our  Union.  The  Western  States 
have  a  right  to  demand  from  this  Government,  that  the  mouth  of 
the  Mississippi  shall  be  kept  open,  both  in  war  and  in  peace.  If 
you  should  not  afford  them  a  free  passage  to  the  ocean,  you  can- 
not expect  to  retain  them  in  the  Union;  they  are,  therefore,  as 
much,  if  not  more,  interested  in  cherishing  the  navy  than  any 
other  portion  of  the  Republic.  The  feeling  in  its  favor  contains 
in  it  nothing  sectional ;  it  is  general.  We  are  all  interested  in  its 
preservation  and  extension.  Unlike  standing  armies,  a  navy 
never  did,  nor  never  will,  destroy  the  liberties  of  any  country.  It 
is  our  most  efficient  and  least  dangerous  arm  of  defence. 

To  what,  then,  does  the  argument  of  the  gentleman  lead? 
Although  iron,  and  hemp,  and  flax,  and  their  manufactures,  are 
essential  to  the  very  existence  of  a  navy;  yet  he  would  make  us 
dependent  for  them  upon  the  will  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  or  the 
King  of  Sweden.  A  statesman  would  as  soon  think  of  being 
dependent  on  a  foreign  nation  for  gunpowder,  or  cannon,  or 
cannon  balls,  or  muskets,  as  he  would  for  the  supply  of  iron, 
or  flax,  or  hemp,  for  our  navy.  Even  if  these  articles  could  not 
he  produced  as  cheaply  in  this  as  in  other  countries,  upon  great 
national  principles,  their  domestic  production  ought  to  be  encour- 
aged, even  if  it  did  tax  the  community.  They  are  absolutely  neces- 
sary for  our  defence.  Without  them,  what  would  become  of  you, 
if  engaged  in  war  with  a  great  naval  power?  You  would  then  be 
as  helpless  as  if  you  were  deprived  of  gunpowder  or  of  cannon. 
Without  them,  your  navy  would  be  perfectly  useless.  Shall  we, 
then,  in  a  country,  calculated  by  nature,  above  all  others,  for  their 
production,  refuse  to  lend  them  a  helping  hand?     I  trust  not. 

The  gentleman  from  Maine  has  said  much  about  our  fish- 
eries, and  the  injurious  effects  which  the  present  bill  will  have 
upon  them.  From  this  argument,  I  was  induced  again  to  read  the 
bill,  supposing  that  it  might  possibly  contain  some  latent  provi- 
sion, hostile  to  the  fisheries,  which  I  had  not  been  able  to  detect. 
Indeed,  one  might  have  supposed,  judging  merely  from  the  re- 
marks of  the  gentleman,  without  a  reference  to  the  bill,  that  it 
aimed  a  deadly  blow  against  this  valuable  branch  of  our  national 
industry.  I  could  find  nothing  in  it,  which  even  touched  the 
fisheries.  They  have  ever  been  special  favorites  of  our  legisla- 
tion.    I  shall  not  pretend  to  enumerate,  because  the  task  might 


350  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

seem  invidious,  the  different  acts  of  Congress  affording  them 
protection.  They  are  numerous.  The  gentleman  has,  in  my 
opinion,  been  very  unfortunate  in  his  complaints  that  they  have 
not  been  sufficiently  protected.  From  the  origin  of  this  Govern- 
ment, they  have  been  cherished,  in  every  possible  manner,  by  our 
legislation.  For  their  benefit  we  have  adopted  a  system  of  prohi- 
bition, of  drawbacks,  and  of  bounties,  unknown  to  our  laws,  in 
relation  to  any  other  subject.  They  have  grown  into  national  im- 
portance, and  have  become  a  great  interest  of  the  country.  They 
should  continue  to  be  cherished,  because  they  are  the  best  nur- 
series of  our  seamen.  I  would  not  withdraw  from  them  an  atom 
of  the  protection  which  they  have  received;  on  the  contrary,  I 
should  cheerfully  vote  them  new  bounties,  if  new  bounties  were 
necessary  to  sustain  them.  They  are  the  very  last  interest  in  the 
country  which  ought  to  complain. 

The  gentleman,  whilst  he  strenuously  opposed  any  additional 
protection  to  domestic  iron,  and  domestic  hemp,  surely  could  not 
have  remembered,  that  the  productions  of  the  fisheries  enjoy  a 
monopoly  of  the  home  market.  The  duties  in  their  favor  are  so 
high  as  to  exclude  foreign  competition.  We  do  not  ask  such 
prohibitory  duties  upon  foreign  iron,  flax,  or  hemp.  We  demand 
but  a  moderate  increase ;  and  yet  the  fisheries,  which  are  protected 
by  prohibitory  duties,  meet  us,  and  deny  to  us,  this  reasonable 
request. 

The  bill  contains  another  provision  which  has  been  assailed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Maine.  It  proposes  to  repeal  the  law, 
now  in  existence,  which  gives  to  the  distiller  of  New  England  rum 
a  bounty  or  drawback  of  four  cents  per  gallon  upon  its  exporta- 
tion to  a  foreign  country.  This  provision  affords  to  New  Eng- 
land rum  a  decided  preference  over  our  spirits  distilled  from  grain, 
in  foreign  markets.  It  is  a  discrimination  which  certainly  ought 
to  be  abolished.  Did  the  gentleman  reflect,  whilst  he  was  oppos- 
ing this  repeal,  that,  for  the  benefit  of  our  fisheries,  we  do  not 
allow  any  drawback  of  the  duties  upon  foreign  fish  and  foreign 
fish  oil,  imported  into  this  country?  The  law,  in  effect,  declares 
that  if  our  merchants  send  these  articles  to  foreign  countries, 
they  must  be  the  production  of  our  own  fisheries.  This  is  a 
remarkable  case :  because  almost  every  other  article,  brought  from 
a  foreign  country,  may  be  exported  in  the  same  form  in  which  it 
arrived,  with  the  benefit  of  drawback.  And  yet  the  gentleman 
insists — although  the  article  is  changed  from  molasses  into  rum — 
that  the  distiller  ought  still  to  receive  four  cents  per  gallon  from  the 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  351 

treasury,  as  a  premium  upon  sending  it  abroad,  to  enter  into  com- 
petition with  a  domestic  liquor,  which  is  distilled  from  the  grain  of 
the  farmer.  Is  this  just?  Is  it  equal?  The  truth  is,  if  our 
navigating  interest  shall  continue  to  oppose  every  measure  which 
may  be  proposed  in  this  House  calculated  to  promote  the  agricul- 
ture of  the  country,  there  is  great  danger  the  people  may  at  last 
begin  to  believe,  that  a  hostility  exists,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
between  these  two  interests.  Should  false  alarms  of  this  character 
ever  be  excited,  they  will  seriously  injure  our  navigation  and  our 
navy.  I  would  caution  gentlemen,  as  they  value  these  interests, 
to  avoid  placing  them  in  unnatural  array  against  the  great  agricul- 
tural interest  of  the  country,  upon  which  all  others  must  at  last 
depend. 

The  gentleman  has  selected  the  year  1810,  and  has  said, 
truly,  that  our  foreign  tonnage  is  not  so  great  now  as  it  was 
then;  and  that  our  tonnage  employed  in  the  coasting  trade  has 
not  increased  since  that  time,  in  proportion  to  the  increase  of 
our  population.  I  ask,  is  this  statement  calculated  to  produce  a 
fair  impression?  We  all  know  that  for  many  years  previous  to 
that  period,  the  nations  of  Europe  had  been  engaged  in  a  desolat- 
ing war;  one  of  the  chief  purposes  of  which  appeared  to  be  the  de- 
struction of  the  commerce  of  each  other.  We  remained  neutral, 
and  became  the  carriers  for  the  world.  This  circumstance  im- 
parted to  our  navigation  a  mushroom  growth,  and  made  it,  in  a 
great  degree,  dependent  upon  the  continuance  of  foreign  war. 
This  growth  had  reached  its  utmost  limit  in  the  year  18 10.  After 
peace  was  restored,  and  the  belligerent  nations  had  turned  their 
attention  to  their  own  navigation,  we  were  necessarily  deprived 
of  a  large  portion  of  their  carrying  trade.  Since  the  year  181 8, 
the  time  when  the  world  had  settled  down  in  a  state  of  peace, 
our  navigation  has  been  gradually  increasing.  Since  then,  "  it 
has  grown  with  the  growth,  and  strengthened  with  the  strength," 
of  our  country.  It  now  depends  upon  our  own  resources  for  its 
support.  Like  the  pine  of  our  mountains,  supported  by  its  native 
soil,  it  defies  the  wintry  blast.  It  is  no  longer  a  mushroom  plant, 
of  hot-house  growth,  which  the  first  frost  will  wither.  It  has 
been  increasing,  from  year  to  year,  since  1818,  with  a  steady  and 
natural  growth,  and  is  now  in  a  most  thriving  and  prosperous 
condition. 

I  .will  now  descend  to  the  humble  though  important  articles 
of  foreign  spirits  and  molasses;  and,  after  having  made  some 


352  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

observations  relating  to  them,  I  shall  not  further  trespass  upon 
the  attention  of  the  committee. 

The  tariff  of  1824  abandoned,  in  a  great  degree,  the  peculiar 
interest  of  the  grain  growing  States.  It  is  true,  that  a  distin- 
guished gentleman  from  Kentucky,  then  a  Representative  upon 
this  floor,  [Mr.  Clay,]  did  move,  in  committee  of  the  whole,  to 
increase  the  duty  on  molasses,  as  this  bill  proposes,  from  five  to 
ten  cents  per  gallon.  His  argument  upon  that  occasion  was  one 
of  the  happiest  efforts  he  ever  made  upon  this  floor.  I  voted  with 
him  in  committee  of  the  whole;  but,  when  the  bill  came  into  the 
House,  I  gave  a  contrary  vote.  I  was  one  of  those  mariners  who 
were  then  willing  to  throw  the  molasses  overboard,  to  prevent  the 
ship  from  sinking.  I  found  that  our  Eastern  brethren  were  so 
hostile  to  any  increased  duty  upon  this  article,  that  the  fate  of  the 
bill  depended  upon  the  rejection  of  Mr.  Clay's  amendment.  I 
thought  it  would  be  too  selfish  in  me  to  persist  in  retaining  a 
single  article,  although  its  retention  might  be  peculiarly  beneficial 
to  my  own  constituents,  when  I  believed  the  effect  would  be  to 
destroy  a  bill  which  contained  many  wise  and  useful  provisions, 
calculated  to  promote  the  general  welfare.  I  did  what  I  believed 
to  be  right,  under  all  the  circumstances,  and  I  have  never  since 
repented  of  my  conduct. 

The  case  is  now  altered.  New  England,  who  was  scarcely 
willing  to  accept  the  tariff  of  1824,  is  now  seeking  protection  f oi- 
lier woollen  manufacturing  interest,  the  value  of  which  has  been 
estimated  at  40,000,000  dollars.  The  vote  upon  the  question  now 
before  the  committee  must  determine  whether  she  is  willing  to 
grasp  this  protection  with  one  hand,  and  with  the  other  spurn  the 
farmers  of  the  Middle  and  Western  States  who  are  asking  for  a 
similar  boon.  Would  such  conduct  be  fair?  By  the  tariff  of 
1824,  we  added  8^  per  cent,  to  the  ad  valorem  duty  which  had 
formerly  existed  on  woollen  goods.  Experience  has  shown  that 
this  increased  duty,  amounting  in  the  whole  to  333/3  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  has  not  been  sufficient.  I  am  willing  and  anxious  to 
extend  further  protection  to  this  suffering  interest,  although  there 
is  not  an  individual  in  five  hundred  of  my  constituents,  in  that 
portion  of  the  congressional  district  with  which  I  am  best  ac- 
quainted, who  will  personally,  at  the  present  time,  derive  the  least 
benefit  from  an  additional  tax  on  woollens.  I  say  personally, 
because  I  freely  admit  that  the  establishment  of  the  woollen  manu- 
facture in  this  country  is  a  great  national  object.  The  farmers  in 
the  eastern  part  of  Pennsylvania  never  can,  and  never  will,  con- 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  353 

vert  their  small  farms,  for  which  they  have  paid  large  prices,  into 
sheep  walks.  The  great  woollen  factories  are  now  far  distant 
from  them.  As  to  the  grain  of  the  middle  States  which  they 
consume,  it  is  too  trifling  to  be  seriously  brought  into  the  account. 
Comparatively  speaking,  it  is  unworthy  of  the  least  consideration. 
Yet  I  am,  as  one  of  the  representatives  of  that  people,  willing  to 
act  with  liberality,  and  afford  these  manufactories  sufficient  aid; 
but  I  shall  expect  the  same  liberality  in  return.  What  claims  has 
the  manufacturer  upon  us,  which  the  farmer  has  not  ?  The  agri- 
cultural interest  is  now  greatly  depressed.  This  fact  is  notorious. 
It  is  personally  known  to  almost  every  gentleman  upon  this  floor. 
The  supply  of  grain  is  every  where  too  great  for  the  demand. 
There  is  a  vast  surplus  of  labor  employed  in  the  cultivation  of  the 
soil.  Are  not  the  farmers  the  very  bone  and  sinew  of  your 
country?  Are  they  not  the  men  who,  by  their  virtues,  must 
preserve  your  republican  institutions  uncorrupted  in  peace,  and 
who,  by  their  valor,  must  defend  them  in  war?  They  are  also 
the  tax  payers,  by  whom  your  government  is  supported.  And  is 
this  the  only  interest  in  the  country  which  is  to  be  disregarded? 
Are  commerce  and  manufactures  to  be  protected,  and  is  agricul- 
ture to  be  abandoned  ?  Can  gentlemen  expect  aid  to  their  woollen 
manufactories,  from  the  representatives  of  farmers  upon  this  floor, 
and  at  the  same  time  refuse  to  aid  those  farmers?  Will  they 
take,  but  never  give?  I  trust  they  will  not  act  so  ungenerous  a 
part. 

What  is  the  true  state  of  the  case,  in  regard  to  molasses  and 
foreign  spirits  ?  The  importation  of  molasses  during  the  last  year 
amounted  to  13,362,268  gallons.  A  gentleman  from  Vermont 
[Mr.  Hunt]  has  informed  the  committee  that,  from  the  year  1822 
to  1826,  both  inclusive,  the  average  annual  quantity  of  molasses 
imported,  was  12,806,948  gallons;  and  no  doubt  he  is  correct. 

The  Committee  of  Manufactures  have  stated,  in  their  report, 
that,  for  the  last  six  years,  the  importation  of  foreign  spirits  has 
been  between  five  and  six  millions  of  gallons  annually.  The 
gentleman  from  Maine  [Mr.  Anderson]  has  corrected  the  com- 
mittee in  relation  to  the  two  last  years,  and  has  shown  that  in 
the  year  1826  the  number  of  gallons  of  foreign  spirits  consumed 
in  the  country  amounted  to  3,208,321;  and  in  1827,  3,183,186. 
And  here,  sir,  permit  me  to  observe,  that  I  regret  I  was  not  pres- 
ent when  that  gentleman  delivered  his  able  and  masterly  argu- 
ment to  the  committee,  which  I  have  since  read  with  great  pleas- 

23 


354  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

ure;  an  argument  which,  for  its  spirit  of  conciliation,  was  in 
perfect  contrast  with  that  of  his  colleague,  [Mr.  Sprague.] 

It  may  be  that  the  estimate  made  by  the  Committee  of  Manu- 
factures of  the  quantity  of  molasses  distilled  within  the  United 
States  is  too  large.  It  is  at  best  only  conjectural,  but  they  have 
given  good  reasons  for  the  opinion  that  about  8,000,000  of  gallons 
of  molasses  are  distilled  in  New  England.  The  gentleman  from 
Maine  [Mr.  Anderson]  has  given  it  as  his  opinion  that  not  more 
than  one-sixth  of  the  molasses  imported  is  distilled;  whilst  the 
Committee  of  Manufactures  believe  it  to  be  about  two-thirds. 
For  the  purpose  of  my  argument,  I  shall  state  the  distillation  to  be 
6,000,000  of  gallons,  which  is  considerably  less  than  one  half  of 
the  molasses  imported  during  the  last  year,  and  is  an  intermediate 
point  between  the  committee  and  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  [Mr. 
Anderson.  ]  According  to  this  estimate,  there  was  imported  into 
the  United  States,  during  the  last  year,  in  the  form  of  molasses, 
six  millions  of  gallons  of  foreign  spirits;  and  in  foreign  spirits 
which  had  been  distilled  abroad,  3,183,186  gallons;  making  an 
aggregate  of  9,183,186  gallons.  Allowing  that  one  bushel  of 
grain  can  be  converted  into  2^4  gallons  of  spirits,  which  I  believe 
to  be  about  the  average  product  from  distillation,  we  find  that 
there  is  annually  imported  into  the  United  States,  of  the  product 
of  foreign  agriculture,  either  in  the  form  of  spirits  or  of  molasses, 
for  the  purpose  of  distillation,  what  would  be  equal  to  more  than 
three  million  three  hundred  thousand  bushels  of  grain.  Without 
increasing  the  consumption  of  spirits  a  single  gallon,  if  you  could 
prohibit  the  importation  of  foreign  spirits,  and  prevent  the  dis- 
tillation of  molasses  in  this  country,  you  would  thus  create  this 
immense  domestic  market  for  the  benefit  of  our  farmers.  Let 
me  call  the  attention  of  gentlemen  who  represent  agricultural 
districts  to  this  fact.  I  ask,  can  it  be  the  policy  of  an  agricul- 
tural people  to  consume,  in  the  form  of  spirits,  the  agricultural 
productions  of  foreign  nations  to  an  amount  equal  to  more  than 
three  millions  three  hundred  thousand  bushels  of  grain,  whilst 
that  article  is  perishing  at  home  for  the  want  of  a  market? 
This  simple  statement  of  the  fact  must  carry  conviction  to  every 
unprejudiced  mind.  The  farmer  has  a  right  to  insist  that  the 
spirits  manufactured  from  the  corn  and  the  rye  which  he  produces 
shall  be  preferred  by  your  legislation  to  that  which  is  distilled 
from  foreign  materials.  Mr.  King  suggested  that  it  might  be- 
come proper  to  prohibit  the  importation  of  foreign  spirits  and 
molasses  altogether.      What  have  the  committee  done?      They 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  355 

have  recommended  an  addition  to  the  present  duties  of  only  ten 
cents  per  gallon  on  foreign  spirits,  and  five  cents  on  molasses ;  and 
this  trifling  increase  has  occasioned  the  storm  which  has  been 
raised  by  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  [Mr.  Sprague.] 

Let  us  view  this  subject  in  another  of  its  aspects.  Some 
gentlemen  say,  we  are  willing  to  give  you  an  additional  duty  upon 
foreign  spirits ;  but  you  must  not  touch  the  molasses.  This  would 
be  a  mere  delusion.  You  may  impose  two  dollars  a  gallon  upon 
the  importation  of  foreign  spirits,  if  you  suffer  it  to  come  to  our 
country  in  the  shape  of  molasses,  at  five  cents  per  gallon;  I  ask 
what  protection  will  be  afforded  to  the  grain  growers?  None. 
Its  sole  effect  would  be  to  transfer  the  distilleries  of  molasses  from 
the  West  Indies  to  New  England.  Leave  the  duty  upon  molasses 
to  remain  as  it  is,  and  the  increase  of  duty  upon  foreign  spirits 
which  the  bill  proposes,  will  afford  the  same  protection  to  the 
domestic  distillation  of  molasses,  that  it  will  afford  to  the  domes- 
tic distillation  of  grain.  This  conclusion  is  irresistible.  I  ask, 
what  kind  of  protection  it  would  be  to  the  farmer,  to  impose  a 
heavy  duty  upon  flour,  and  suffer  wheat  to  be  imported  free? 
It  would  be  a  bounty  to  the  miller,  but  no  protection  to  the  grain 
grower.  Or  what  protection  would  it  afford  to  the  wool  grower, 
to  tax  foreign  woollens  heavily,  whilst  you  suffered  the  raw 
material  to  be  imported  at  a  trifling  rate  of  duty  ?  Such  a  policy 
would  encourage  the  manufacturer,  but  ruin  the  wool  grower. 
Upon  the  same  principle,  I  ask,  what  protection  it  would  afford  to 
our  grain  growers,  if  you  were  even  to  exclude  foreign  rum,  whilst 
you  admit  its  importation  in  the  form  of  molasses,  at  five  cents  per 
gallon?  Such  legislation  would  benefit  the  domestic  distillers  of 
molasses;  but  there  the  advantage  would  end.  The  duty  upon 
foreign  spirits  and  foreign  molasses  must  stand  or  fall  together. 
It  will  be  a  vain  attempt  to  endeavor  to  persuade  the  Pennsylvania 
farmer,  that  he  will  be  protected  against  foreign  rum  by  a  high 
duty,  whilst  the  raw  material  out  of  which  this  rum  is  manufac- 
tured, shall  continue  to  be  imported  at  the  present  rate  of  duty. 
The  gentleman  has  contended,  that  the  additional  duty  of  five 
cents  per  gallon  upon  molasses  will  operate  with  severity  upon 
the  poor,  who  use  this  article  with  their  food.  Can  this  position 
be  sustained?  If  all  protection  to  agriculture  were  out  of  the 
question,  and  if  we  were  now  debating  a  mere  measure  of  revenue, 
the  duty  ought  to  be  increased  to  ten  cents.  It  would  require  a 
much  greater  increase  of  duty,  than  the  bill  proposes,  to  place  the 
poor  man  of  New  England,  where  this  article  is  chiefly  consumed, 


356  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

upon  the  same  footing  with  the  poor  man  in  other  portions  of  the 
Union.  One  gallon  of  molasses  contains  sweetening  matter  equal 
to  eight  pounds  of  brown  sugar.  Under  the  existing  laws,  the 
poor  man  of  Pennsylvania,  who  purchases  eight  pounds  of  such 
sugar,  pays  a  duty  upon  it  of  twenty-four  cents,  whilst  the  indi- 
vidual who  buys  a  gallon  of  molasses,  pays  only  a  duty  of  five 
cents.  At  present,  the  poor  man  in  one  portion  of  our  country, 
thus  pays  nearly  five  times  as  much  duty,  upon  an  article  of  the 
same  nature,  as  the  poor  man  in  another.  I  ask  the  gentleman  to 
answer  this  argument.  After  the  duty  on  molasses  shall  have 
been  increased  to  ten  cents,  there  will  still  be  a  great  disproportion 
between  the  tax  upon  it  and  upon  brown  sugar.  Those  who  use 
molasses  in  the  eastern  States,  will  not,  even  then,  pay  half  as 
much  tax  to  the  Government,  as  the  consumers  of  brown  sugar 
in  the  other  portions  of  the  Union.  It  has  been  estimated  by  a 
gentleman  from  Vermont,  [Mr.  Hunt,]  that  each  individual  in 
that  State,  consumes,  upon  an  average,  about  two  gallons  of 
molasses  in  the  course  of  a  year.  Admitting  this  estimate  to  be 
correct,  by  the  law  now  in  existence,  he  pays  a  duty  of  ten  cents ; 
and  will,  if  this  bill  should  pass,  pay  only  twenty  cents;  whilst 
another  individual  in  Pennsylvania,  who  has  not  acquired  the  taste 
for  molasses,  will  still  be  compelled  to  pay  forty-eight  cents,  upon 
sixteen  pounds  of  brown  sugar. 

I  have  the  highest  names  in  the  country  to  sustain  me  in  this 
part  of  the  argument.  I  have  already  referred  to  the  former 
Speaker  of  this  House.  Let  me  now  introduce  the  name  of  Mr. 
Madison  for  the  same  purpose.  He  proposed  a  duty  of  eight 
cents  a  gallon  on  molasses,  in  the  first  Congress,  when  only  five 
per  cent,  ad  valorem  was  imposed  upon  most  of  the  articles 
imported  from  abroad.  It  will  be  observed  by  the  committee  that 
this  duty  was  proposed  at  the  same  time  that  it  was  agreed  to  tax 
brown  sugar  only  one  cent  per  pound.  Mr.  Madison,  in  support 
of  his  motion,  said,  "  he  had  heard  an  observation  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania,  [Mr.  Fitzsimmons,]  which  he 
thought  lessened  the  force  of  the  objection  taken  against  taxing 
molasses  as  a  necessary  of  life,  those  who  used  it  in  substance 
escaped  the  tax  on  sugar,  at  least  so  much  of  it  as  the  one  was  a 
substitute  for  the  other ;  he  feared  that  there  was  no  other  way  of 
coming  at  the  duty  on  country  rum,  but  laying  one  on  the  ma- 
terial from  which  it  was  extracted;  and  he  did  not  think  eight 
cents  out  of  the  way."  Mr.  Fitzsimmons,  then  a  representative 
from  Pennsylvania,  and  an  able  and  practical  representative  he 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  357 

was,  so  far  as  I  can  judge  from  the  debates  of  that  day,  in  sus- 
taining the  proposition  of  Mr.  Madison,  observed,  "  as  to  what 
is  used  in  its  raw,  unmanufactured  state,  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
observe,  that,  as  it  is  generally  a  substitute  for  sugar,  the  con- 
sumers will  therefore  avoid  the  tax  on  that  article,  and  pay  it  on 
the  other.  In  Pennsylvania  they  mostly  use  sugar;  now,  if  the 
people  there  pay  a  tax  upon  that  article,  it  is  but  distributive 
justice  that  the  people  of  Massachusetts  pay  one  on  the  article 
they  use  for  the  same  purpose."  And  again,  he  contended, 
"  if  a  less,  or  much  less,  duty  be  laid,  the  operation  of  the  tax 
upon  sugar  and  molasses  would  be  unequal  on  the  consumer, 
which  certainly  cannot  be  the  wish  of  any  member,  if  I  may  judge 
from  the  conciliating  disposition  which  is  prevalent  in  the  com- 
mittee." Finally  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  determined  to 
impose  a  duty  of  six  cents  per  gallon  upon  molasses. 

When  it  was  afterwards  proposed  to  fix  the  duty  on  brown 
sugar  at  two  cents  per  pound,  Mr.  Fitzsimmons  remarked,  "  that 
one  gallon  of  molasses  weighed  eight  pounds;  that  at  six  cents 
it  did  not  pay  a  cent  per  pound;  could  it  therefore  be  called  any 
wise  equal  to  such  a  tax  on  sugar  ?  Moreover,  sugar  is  an  article 
of  as  general  consumption  as  molasses;  and  when  it  is  of  this 
inferior  quality,  it  enters  as  much,  or  more,  into  the  consumption 
of  the  poor,  as  the  other,  while  at  the  same  time  molasses  will 
sweeten  more  according  to  its  weight,  than  even  the  best  sugar 
will;  from  which  considerations  I  think  gentlemen  will  be  satis- 
fied, by  putting  it  on  an  equality  with  molasses;  therefore,  I  do 
not  oppose  one  cent  per  pound."  The  committee  accordingly 
fixed  the  duty  at  one  cent. 

A  duty  of  six  cents  upon  each  gallon  of  molasses,  even  at 
that  day  of  low  duties,  passed  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  although  it  was  opposed,  upon  the 
floor,  by  all  the  intellectual  strength  of  New  England,  then  in  that 
body.  This  duty  was  afterwards  reduced  (I  believe  in  the  Sen- 
ate, )  to  two  and  a  half  cents  per  gallon ;  and  in  that  form  the  law 
passed.  Thus  the  Eastern  people — by  means  of  that  perseverance 
of  character  which  so  eminently  distinguishes  them,  and  which  no 
man  more  admires  than  I  do  myself — succeeded  in  defeating  a 
majority  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  with  Mr.  Madison  at 
their  head.  Whilst  the  duty  imposed  upon  brown  sugar  was  one 
cent  per  pound,  that  imposed  upon  a  gallon  of  molasses,  which 
is  equal  to  eight  pounds  of  sugar,  was  only  two  and  a  half  cents. 
In  the  history  of  our  legislation,  this  original  disparity  has  become 


358  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

much  greater.  Whilst  brown  sugar  now  pays  three  cents  per 
pound,  molasses  is  charged  with  only  five  cents  per  gallon.  And 
yet  a  printed  paper,  under  the  signature  of  "Many,"  entitled  "The 
Real  State  of  the  Case,"  has  been  circulated  from  this  House  over 
the  Union,  accusing  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  of  intro- 
ducing the  moderate  additional  duty  of  five  cents  per  gallon 
upon  molasses,  into  the  bill,  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  it.  In 
this  manner  they  have  been  presented  before  the  public  as  objects 
for  the  hand  of  scorn  to  point  at — as  betrayers  of  that  interest 
which  it  was  their  duty  to  protect. 

The  gentleman  from  Maine  seems  to  be  ignorant  of  the  nature 
of  distilling  grain ;  at  least  so  far  as  it  is  practiced  in  the  district 
which  I  have  the  honor  in  part  to  represent.  He  spoke  of  the 
farmer  going  to  the  distiller  with  50  bushels  of  corn,  and  giving 
one  half  of  the  spirits  which  it  produced,  and  which  he  estimated 
at  fifty  gallons,  for  distilling  the  other  half.  In  my  district  they 
have  attained  to  great  perfection  in  the  art  of  distillation.  I  have 
at  this  moment  in  my  pocket  a  letter  from  a  respectable  distiller  of 
the  county  of  Chester,  which  informs  me  that  he  makes  three 
gallons  of  whiskey  from  a  single  bushel  of  grain — the  one  half 
corn  and  the  other  half  rye.  I  believe  this  to  be  no  uncommon 
production.  The  distiller  receives  little  more  for  his  labor  than 
food  for  his  hogs.  It  is  by  feeding  stock,  and  not  by  distillation, 
that  he  makes  his  profit.  For  every  cent  which  you  increase  the 
price  of  a  gallon  of  whiskey,  the  distiller  is  able  to  give  the  farmer 
an  increased  price  of  nearly  three  cents  for  his  bushel  of  grain. 
Raise  the  price  of  whiskey  but  five  cents  the  gallon,  and  you 
increase  the  price  of  corn  and  rye  from  twelve  to  fifteen  cents 
the  bushel.  This,  therefore,  is  a  vast  interest.  It  is  not  on  ac- 
count of  the  distillers  that  we  are  anxious ;  although  their  interests 
ought  not  to  be  disregarded.  We  wish  to  afford  the  farmer  a 
home  market  for  his  grain.  I  do  not  wish  to  see  the  consumption 
of  spirits  increased  a  single  gallon.  Heaven  forbid  that  I  should ! 
What  I  alone  desire,  and  what  alone  I  wish  to  obtain,  is,  that 
spirits  distilled  from  native  grain  should  be  substituted,  instead 
of  spirits  distilled  from  foreign  materials.  If  this  article  must 
be  used,  let  it  be  that  of  domestic  origin. 

The  gentleman  has  depicted,  in  glowing  colors,  other  dis- 
astrous consequences  which  would  inevitably  follow,  from  the 
proposed  increase  of  duty  on  molasses.  This  five  cents  per  gal- 
lon will  destroy  our  lumber  trade,  and  our  fish  trade,  with  the 
West  Indies.     He  says  they  both  depend  upon  molasses,  because 


1828]  SPEECH  ON  TARIFF  BILL  359 

that  is  the  article  which  we  received  in  exchange  for  our  fish 
and  our  lumber,  and  that  should  the  present  bill  pass  we  shall  no 
longer  be  able  to  trade  our  lumber  and  our  fish  with  the  people 
of  the  West  Indies,  for  their  molasses.  The  fertile  imagination 
of  the  gentleman  has  given  birth  to  other  alarming  consequences, 
which  would  follow  from  this  extravagant  duty.  It  will  not  only 
destroy  the  lumber  trade  and  the  fisheries,  but  their  destruction 
will  destroy  the  navy.  Even  my  friend  from  Maine  [Mr. 
Anderson,]  drew  the  same  hideous  picture. 

It  is  very  fortunate  that  the  British  did  not  know  what  was 
our  true  condition  during  the  last  war.  If  the  five  cents  per 
gallon  will  be  productive  of  such  fearful  consequences,  the  British 
government,  by  withholding  molasses  from  us  altogether,  might 
have  prostrated  our  navy.  Before  the  gentleman  made  this  dis- 
covery to  the  House,  he  should  have  moved  to  close  the  doors. 
We  are  surrounded  by  British  agents,  and  no  doubt  this  discovery 
will  be  sent  across  the  Atlantic,  with  the  rapidity  of  an  eagle's 
flight.  Five  cents  per  gallon  of  additional  duty  upon  molasses, 
will  destroy  our  timber  trade,  our  fisheries,  our  commerce,  our 
navigation,  nay,  even  our  navy.  I  might  alter  his  quotation,  and 
say,  "  not  a  flag  but  by  molasses  sails."  It  is  the  article  which 
keeps  the  star-spangled  banner  of  our  country  afloat  upon  the 
ocean.  Is  the  gentleman  serious  in  exhibiting  to  our  view  all 
"  the  gorgons  and  chimeras "  which  he  has  called  into  his 
service? 

For  my  own  part,  I  fear  that  we  shall  derive  but  little  benefit 
from  this  duty  on  molasses.  It  is  too  small  to  produce  any  great 
practical  good.  It  will  increase  the  price  of  New  England  rum, 
in  a  degree  so  trifling,  that  I  fear  it  will  not  very  much  diminish 
its  consumption. 

I  know  that  those  who  have  acquired  a  taste  for  molasses  will 
not  abandon  the  use  of  that  article,  even  if  it  should  cost  five  cents 
per  gallon  more  than  the  present  price.  I  do  not  apprehend  that 
any  of  the  great  interests  of  the  country  is  about  to  be  seriously 
affected,  much  less  destroyed,  by  this  tax. 

The  gentleman  from  Maine,  in  his  concluding  observations, 
remarked,  if  I  understood  him  correctly,  and  if  I  did  not  I  wish 
to  afford  him  an  opportunity  to  explain,  that  the  British  Parlia- 
ment would  pass  this  bill  by  acclamation,  if  presented  to  them. 
And  that,  if  the  members  of  the  committee  had  been  British  sub- 
jects, they  could  not  have  pleased  their  royal  master  better,  than 
by  presenting  him  with  this  production. 


360  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

Mr.  Sprague  here  explained. 

Sir,  said  Mr.  B.  I  am  pleased  to  take  the  gentleman's  expla- 
nation. More  especially  as  he  has  disclaimed  all  intention  to 
attribute  any  improper  motive  to  the  committee. 

I  shall  not,  after  this  explanation,  make  the  remarks  which 
I  intended ;  but  shall  conclude,  with  a  few  observations  in  relation 
to  the  general  course  which  has  been  pursued  towards  the  Com- 
mittee on  Manufactures,  by  those  who  are  opposed  to  the  bill. 
This  committee  is  one  of  our  Standing  Committees.  The  mem- 
bers who  compose  it,  both  in  head  and  in  heart,  will  bear  a  fair 
comparison  with  those  of  any  other  committee  of  this  House. 
They  have  been  most  industriously  employed,  and  no  gentleman 
upon  this  floor  ought  either  to  think  or  to  say  that  they  have 
abandoned  their  duty.  In  my  opinion,  it  would  have  been  much 
more  proper  that  no  remarks,  such  as  those  which  were  made  by 
the  gentleman  from  Maine,  should  have  been  uttered  upon  this 
floor.  What  is  the  necessary  inference  from  such  observations? 
Either  that  the  committee  misunderstood,  or  betrayed  the  interest 
which  had  been  intrusted  to  their  care.  Either  that  they  were 
weak,  or  that  they  were  wicked.  No  gentleman  upon  this  floor 
has  a  right  to  present  any  committee  before  this  House,  or  before 
the  nation,  in  such  an  attitude.  Another  gentleman  from  New 
York  [Mr.  Martindale,]  has  said,  in  the  progress  of  the  debate, 
that,  if  they  had  been  bribed  with  British  gold,  they  could  not 
more  effectually  have  injured  their  own  country,  than  by  the  bill 
which  they  have  reported.  I  have  no  disposition  to  fight  the  bat- 
tles of  the  committee.1  Being  a  man  of  peace,  I  am  scarcely 
willing  to  fight  my  own ;  but  yet  I  feel  myself  constrained  publicly 
to  declare,  that,  in  my  opinion,  the  conduct  which  has  been  pur- 
sued towards  that  committee  has  been  highly  reprehensible.  It  is 
the  common  duty  of  every  member  of  this  House,  to  protect  the 
character  of  all  other  members  from  unmerited  censure.  We 
should  at  least  exercise  mutual  tenderness  towards  each  other ;  as 
we  are  all  certain  of  being  sufficiently  abused  by  the  public.  We 
are  often  placed  in  such  situations,  that  our  judgment  is  at  war 
with  our  feelings.  If,  under  these  circumstances,  in  addition  to 
the  performance  of  an  unpleasant  duty,  our  motives  are  to  be 
branded  with  suspicion  by  each  other,  our  situation  must  soon 
become  exceedingly  irksome.  I  have  been  led  to  this  remark, 
from  having  felt  myself  compelled,  this  day,  to  vote  against  the 
bill  for  the  relief  of  the  widow  of  General  Brown.  It  was  the 
most  reluctant  vote  which  I  have  ever  given.     I  am  sorry  that  any 


V.  OF 

^s^4  L !  F I 

1828]  DUTIES  ON  DISTILLED  SPIRITS  361 

improper  motive  should  ever,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  have 
been  attributed  to  the  Committee  of  Manufactures.  The  policy  of 
measures,  not  the  motives  of  the  members  of  the  committee  who 
recommend  them,  is  the  fair  subject  of  attack  upon  this  floor. 
The  best  apology  which  I  can  make  to  the  House  for  having 
trespassed  so  long  upon  their  attention,  is  to  sit  down,  without 
making  any  formal  conclusion. 


REMARKS,  APRIL  8,  1828, 

ON  THE  DUTY  ON  DISTILLED  SPIRITS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  (on  whose  motion  this  amendment  had  been 
adopted  in  Committee  of  the  Whole)  replied  to  Mr.  Barney,  and 
strenuously  advocated  it.2 

********** 

Mr.  Buchanan  now  said,  that  so  many  members  had  ex- 
pressed to  him  a  desire  that  he  would  propose  a  lower  duty,  that 
he  was  induced,  for  the  sake  of  harmony,  and  to  save  the  time  of 
the  House,  and  not  because  he  thought  the  duty  too  high,  to  move 
to  amend  the  amendment  by  striking  out  thirty,  and  inserting 
twenty. 

The  Chair  reminded  him  that  such  a  motion  would  not  be 
in  order,  in  as  much  as  the  amendment  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  which  went  to  strike  out  ten,  and  insert  thirty,  was  not 
divisible.  He  might,  however,  attain  his  object  by  having  a 
vote  first  taken  on  thirty  cents,  and,  if  that  should  be  decided 
in  the  negative,  his  motion  for  twenty  would  then  be  in  order. 

The  question  was  accordingly  put  on  concurring  in  the 
amount  reported  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  viz :  to  strike 
out  ten  cents,  and  insert  thirty,  and  decided  in  the  negative,  by 
yeas  and  nays: — Yeas,  58 — Nays  131. 

Mr.  Buchanan  now  moved  to  strike  out  ten  cents  and  insert 
twenty;  and  this  question  was  also  decided  in  the  negative,  by 
yeas  and  nays: — Yeas,  90 — Nays   102. 

Mr.  Buchanan,  expressing  reluctance  again  to  trouble  the 
House,  but  referring  to  the  importance  of  this  subject  to  his 
constituents,  moved  to  strike  out  ten  cents  and  insert  fifteen. 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  2219,  2221. 
3  The  amendment  was  to  substitute  thirty  cents  for  ten  cents  as  the  duty 
on  distilled  spirits. 


362  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

Mr.  Degraff  requested  Mr.  Buchanan  to  state  to  the  House 
what  was  the  present  duty  on  imported  spirits.  This  Mr. 
Buchanan  declined,  as  he  presumed  the  gentlemen  were  all  ac- 
quainted with  it. 


AMENDMENT,  APRIL  9,  1828, 

OF  THE  DUTIES  ON  WOOLLENS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  moved  the  following  amendment  to  that  just 
offered  by  Mr.  Mallary: 

Strike  out  after  the  word  "  bindings,"  in  the  2nd  paragraph,  and  insert : 
Instead  of  the  present  duty  of  33  1-3  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  a  duty  of  40 
per  cent,  ad  valorem,  until  the  30th  day  of  June,  1829,  and  after  that  time, 
a  duty  of  5  per  cent,  per  annum,  in  addition,  until  the  whole  amount  of  duty 
shall  be  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem :  Provided,  That  all  manufactures  of  wool, 
except  flannels  and  baizes,  the  actual  value  of  which,  at  the  place  whence 
imported,  shall  not  exceed  33  1-3  cents  per  square  yard,  shall,  instead  of  the 
present  duty  of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  be  charged  with  a  duty  of  30  per 
cent,  ad  valorem,  until  the  30th  day  of  June,  1829,  and,  after  that  time,  a 
duty  of  5  per  cent,  per  annum,  in  addition,  until  the  whole  amount  of  duty 
shall  be  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Mr.  Buchanan  advocated  his  amendment  in  a  short  speech, 
stating  his  objection  to  the  introduction  of  minimums,  and  his 
belief  that  this  amendment  would  be  equivalent,  in  its  effects,  to 
the  minimum  system,  as  reported  in  the  bill. 


REMARKS,  APRIL  15,  1828, 

ON  THE  DUTY  ON  MOLASSES.2 

Mr.  Buchanan  professed  to  be  a  decided  friend  to  the  policy 
of  protecting  domestic  industry,  but  his  attachment  to  the  bill 
would  be  greatly  diminished  if  the  duty  on  molasses  should  be 
stricken  out.  He  contended  that  every  three  gallons  of  molasses, 
imported  into  this  country,  to  be  manufactured  into  New  England 
rum,  took  the  place  of  one  bushel  of  corn  or  rye;  and  that,  for 
each  cent  per  gallon,  which  was  added  to  the  price  of  whiskey,  the 
distillers  in  his  district  could,  and  did  give  an  additional  price,  of 


Register    of    Debates,    20    Cong.    1    Sess.    1827-1828,    IV.,    part    2,    pp. 
2252-2253. 

2  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  p.  2346. 


1828]  IMPORTATION  OF  IRON  363 

between  two  and  three  cents  per  bushel  for  grain.  He  had  voted 
to  strike  out  the  duty  on  molasses  in  1824,  to  save  the  tariff  bill, 
but  should  not  do  so  again. 


REMARKS,  APRIL  19,  1828, 

ON  MR.   BARBOUR'S  EXPLANATION.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  he  was  glad  the  gentleman  from  Virginia 
had  made  the  explanation  which  he  had  done,  to  the  House,  and 
to  the  nation.  Mr.  B.  said,  I  was  then  a  member  of  the  House, 
and  heard,  at  the  time,  that  the  Speaker  had  been  mistaken  in 
the  opinion  which  the  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island  [Mr. 
Durfee]  entertained  in  relation  to  the  tariff.  It  cannot  be  denied, 
however,  that  an  erroneous  impression  has  prevailed,  to  a  con- 
siderable extent,  in  Pennsylvania,  in  regard  to  this  transaction. 
That  impression  will  now  be  removed  by  the  explanation  of  the 
gentleman ;  as  his  high  character  for  integrity  will  give  a  sanction 
to  his  statement,  which  will  carry  conviction  to  every  mind. 


REMARKS,  APRIL  28,  1828, 

ON  A  BILL  TO  AUTHORIZE  RAILROAD  COMPANIES  TO  IMPORT 
IRON  AND  MACHINERY  FREE  OF  DUTY.* 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  felt  indifferent,  whether  the  bill  were 
referred  to  the  Committee  of  Manufactures,  or  to  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  on  the  state  of  the  Union.  He  would  not  have  said 
a  word  upon  this  subject,  had  he  not  felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  notice 
the  remarks  made  by  his  friends  from  Massachusetts  and  South 
Carolina  [Mr.  Dwight  and  Mr.  McDuffie.] 

The  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  has  stated,  that  this  bill, 
should  it  become  a  law,  would  not  interfere  with  the  domestic 
production  of  iron;  because  we  cannot  manufacture  such  iron 


Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  p.  2414. 
These  remarks  refer  to  an  explanation  made  by  Mr.  P.  P.  Barbour,  of  Vir- 
ginia, of  his  course,  when  Speaker  of  the  House,  in  appointing  the  Commit- 
tee on  Manufactures.  Although  personally  opposed  to  the  protective  system, 
he  had  intended  to  appoint  a  majority  favorable  to  protection,  and  had,  as  he 
supposed,  done  so ;  but  he  proved  to  be  mistaken  as  to  the  views  of  Mr. 
Durfee,  of  Rhode  Island,  who,  contrary  to  expectations,  did  not  concur  in 
the  measures  of  those  who  were  favorable  to  manufactures. 

2  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  p.  2505. 


364  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

as  the  construction  of  Rail  Roads  requires.  I  believe  that  such 
iron  can  be  manufactured,  in  this  country  to  any  extent  which  may 
be  required ;  and  I  trust  that  I  will  be  able  to  demonstrate  the  cor- 
rectness of  this  opinion,  when  the  proper  occasion  shall  arrive. 

The  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  has  said,  that  this  was 
a  bill  to  encourage  internal  improvements.  In  this  he  is  correct. 
He  might  have  said  more,  and  declared,  that  it  went  further  in 
that  cause,  than  any  member  of  this  House  had  ever  yet  proposed. 
We  have  subscribed  stock  in  incorporated  companies,  to  promote 
the  construction  of  roads  and  canals ;  but  upon  such  subscriptions 
we  have  always  expected  to  receive  our  dividends.  This  is  all 
right.  We  have  gone  further,  and  constructed  a  turnpike  road  at 
the  sole  expense  of  the  Government ;  but  this  road  was  intended 
to  be  free  to  all  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  no  person 
now  contemplates,  that  more  toll  shall  ever  be  collected  upon  it, 
than  may  be  necessary  to  keep  it  in  repair.  This  bill  goes  to  a 
much  greater  length  than  we  have  gone  in  either  of  these  cases. 
It  proposes  nothing  less,  than  to  make  an  absolute  donation  of 
about  $300,000  to  a  company,  whose  stock  is  selling  at  $16  for 
$1,  or  at  sixteen  hundred  per  cent,  above  par,  upon  the  money 
which  has  been  actually  paid;  from  which  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  will  never  receive  any  advantage,  either  in  a 
diminution  of  the  rate  of  tolls,  or  in  dividends.  I  think  this  bill 
ought  to  be  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  I  hope 
that,  in  pursuing  this  course,  we  may  be  committing  the  lamb  to 
the  wolf — the  event  which  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina 
apprehended  might  result  from  its  reference  to  the  Committee  of 
Domestic  Manufactures. 


REMARKS,  APRIL   30,  1828, 

ON  THE  DATE  OF  ADJOURNMENT.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  opposed  fixing  any  day  of  adjournment  at 
this  time.  It  might  be  that  Congress  could  adjourn  on  the  19th 
of  May.  This  would  depend  much  upon  the  time  which  the 
Senate  might  occupy  in  the  discussion  of  the  Tariff.  He  said, 
that,  until  that  subject  should  be  finally  disposed  of,  he  would  not 
agree  to  fix  upon  any  day;  because  he  would  not  give  any  vote 

1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  pp.  2541- 
2542. 


1828]  THE  NATURALIZATION  LAWS  365 

which  might  prevent  a  final  decision  upon  the  Tariff  question, 
during  the  present  session. 

He  concurred  in  opinion  with  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
[Mr.  Taylor.]  The  committee  had  been  appointed  for  two  pur- 
poses. The  first  was  to  ascertain  and  report  to  this  House  the 
bills  upon  which  it  was  our  duty  to  act  during  the  present  session ; 
and  the  second,  to  recommend  a  day  of  adjournment.  In  order 
to  ascertain  when  we  could  adjourn,  it  was  necessary  that  the 
Committee  should  first  have  determined  what  we  ought  yet  to  do. 
The  one  question  was  dependent  upon  the  other.  Notwithstand- 
ing this  clear  proposition,  the  committee  have  recommended,  that 
the  session  shall  be  closed  on  the  26th  of  May;  without  having 
considered  what  time,  whether  a  longer  or  a  shorter  period,  the 
transaction  of  the  public  business  might  require. 

Mr.  B.  then  renewed  the  motion  of  Mr.  Taylor  to  lay  the 
report  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  Isacks  demanded  that  the  question  be  taken  by  yeas  and 
nays,  and  they  were  ordered  by  the  House — and,  being  taken,  they 
stood  as  follows : — Yeas  JJ — Nays  90. 

So  the  House  refused  to  lay  the  report  on  the  table. 


REMARKS,  MAY   1,  1828, 

ON  THE  NATURALIZATION  LAWS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  then  moved  the  consideration  of  the  bill  "  to 
amend  the  acts  concerning  Naturalization." 

Mr.  B.  said,  he  would  briefly  state  the  reasons  which  had 
induced  the  Judiciary  Committee  to  report  this  bill  to  the  House. 
Under  the  existing  law,  an  alien  cannot  be  naturalized  unless  he 
has  resided  for  five  years  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States. 
He  must,  when  he  applies  to  be  naturalized,  prove  his  residence 
by  disinterested  testimony;  his  own  oath  is  not  allowed  for  this 
purpose.  In  addition,  he  must  exhibit  a  certificate  that  he  had 
declared,  in  a  Court  of  Record,  at  least  two  years  before  his 
application,  that  it  was  his  intention  to  become  a  citizen,  and  to 
renounce  his  allegiance  to  the  Government  from  which  he  came. 
The  bill  will  not  interfere  with  either  of  these  provisions.  The 
existing  laws  require,  in  addition  to  these  provisions,  that  the 
alien  should  produce  a  certificate  that  he  had  gone  before  a 

1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  pp.  2555- 
2556. 


THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

Court  of  Record,  and  registered  himself;  and  this  certificate  is  to 
be  the  evidence  of  the  time  of  his  arrival  within  the  United  States. 
The  act  of  226.  March,  1816,  farther  requires  that  this  certificate 
of  registry  shall  be  recited  in  the  certificate  of  naturalization. 

What  has  been  the  consequence  ?  By  a  correct  construction 
of  these  laws,  no  alien  can  be  naturalized  without  a  registry.  This 
is  the  only  evidence  which  the  court  can  legally  receive  of  the 
time  of  his  arrival.  'In  those  courts,  therefore,  in  which  this  prac- 
tice prevails,  if  an  alien  has  been  ten  years  in  the  country,  though 
his  residence  were  notorious  during  all  that  time,  still,  if  he  has 
neglected  to  register  himself,  he  cannot  be  naturalized  until  five 
years  after  his  first  application  to  the  court.  This  neglect  is  com- 
mon, nay,  almost  universal ;  because  aliens  do  not  know  the  law, 
and  would  not,  for  sometime  after  their  arrival,  conform  to  it, 
even  if  they  did.  But  this  law,  like  every  other  unreasonable  one, 
is  evaded.  It  sets  up  an  arbitrary  standard  of  evidence,  to  defeat 
the  spirit  of  its  own  provisions.  The  consequence  is,  that  some 
courts  do,  and  others  do  not,  carry  this  part  of  it  into  execution. 
In  1824,  Congress  yielded  this  provision,  so  far  as  to  declare,  that 
a  certificate  of  naturalization  theretofore  obtained,  should  be  good, 
notwithstanding  it  did  not  recite  this  registry.  The  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary  believed  that  it  would  be  better  at  once  to  dispense 
with  this  registry.    They  thought  it  would  simplify  the  law. 

The  second  section  provides  for  another  class  of  cases.  Every 
alien  who  has  arrived  in  this  country,  since  the  14th  of  April, 
1802,  must  exhibit  a  certificate  of  the  declaration  of  his  intention 
to  become  a  citizen,  made  two  years  before  his  application  to  be 
naturalized. 

It  was  believed  by  the  committee,  that,  if  an  alien  could 
establish,  by  clear  and  indifferent  testimony,  that  he  had  arrived 
in  the  country  previous  to  the  late  war,  (viz.  the  18th  June, 
1 81 2,)  and  continued  to  reside  in  it  ever  since,  this  condition 
might,  in  such  case,  with  propriety,  be  dispensed  with.  We  had 
reason  to  believe  that  there  were  many  persons  in  the  country, 
particularly  Irishmen,  who  served  as  soldiers  during  the  late  war, 
who  have  hitherto  neglected  to  make  a  declaration  of  their  inten- 
tion to  become  citizens;  and  we  thought  it  right  to  provide  for 
this  class  of  cases,  more  especially  as  such  persons  must  prove,  by 
clear  and  indifferent  testimony,  that  they  have  ever  since  resided 
within  the  United  States.  It  is  now  nearly  sixteen  years  since 
the  declaration  of  that  war.  This  section  is  in  strict  accordance 
with  former  precedents.     By  the  act  of  14th  April,  1802,  aliens 


1828]  OFFICE  OF  MAJOR  GENERAL  367 

resident  within  the  United  States  between  the  29th  January, 
1795,  and  1 8th  June,  1798,  might,  within  two  years  after  its 
passage,  have  become  citizens,  without  any  such  declaration  of 
their  intention.  Here  the  residence  required  was  not  quite  six 
years.  By  the  act  of  the  26th  March,  1804,  aliens,  who  have 
resided  in  the  country  between  the  18th  June,  1798,  and  the  14th 
April,  1802,  and  have  continued  to  reside  in  it,  have  a  right  to  be 
naturalized,  without  producing  such  a  certificate.  Since  1804,  we 
have  passed  no  similar  provision,  although  more  than  twenty-four 
years  have  since  elapsed. 


REMARKS,  MAY  14,  1828, 

ON   THE    OFFICE  OF   MAJOR    GENERAL.* 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  should  not  have  said  a  word  upon  this 
bill,  had  not  his  attention  been  drawn  to  the  second  section  of  it, 
by  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  [Mr.  Vance.]  He 
would  have  contented  himself  with  a  silent  vote  in  favor  of  its 
passage.  But,  said  Mr.  B.  I  belong  to  the  Militia  myself — I 
have  a  fellow-feeling  for  them,  and  I  never  shall  consent  to  de- 
grade them;  for  after  all,  they  are  the  great  bulwark  of  our 
defence.  The  second  section  of  this  bill  will  produce  that  effect. 
A  Captain  in  the  regular  Army,  after  he  has  continued  in  the 
service  for  ten  years,  is  breveted  a  Major,  and  in  ten  years  more 
he  becomes  a  Colonel  by  brevet.  The  mere  lapse  of  twenty  years 
transforms  a  Captain  into  a  Colonel  by  brevet,  and  gives  him  this 
honorary  rank ;  although  he  may  still  remain  but  a  Captain  in  the 
line,  and  be  entitled  to  command  but  a  single  company.  Brevet 
rank  is  therefore  acquired,  in  our  army,  without  any  extraordinary 
merit.  Under  this  section,  such  a  Captain  would  be  entitled  to 
rank  a  Colonel  of  Volunteers  or  Militia  who  had  led  his  regiment 
into  the  field,  and  to  assume  the  command.  I  ask,  will  not  any 
law,  which  would  operate  in  this  manner,  tend  to  destroy  the 
spirit  of  the  Militia,  and  to  degrade  them  both  in  their  own  eyes 
and  those  of  the  Nation  ?  The  past  history  of  this  country  proves 
that  they  do  not  deserve  such  treatment  at  our  hands.  During  the 
last  war,  the  Militia  purchased  glory  both  for  themselves  and  for 
their  country,  upon  the  field  of  battle ;  and  our  most  brilliant  vic- 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  1  Sess.  1827-1828,  IV.,  part  2,  pp.  2679- 
2680,  2684-2685. 


368  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

tories  were  those  achieved  under  the  command  of  men,  who  had 
been  Militia  Generals,  and  who  were  transferred  to  the  same  rank, 
in  the  regular  Army. 

It  has  been  objected,  against  the  passage  of  this  bill,  by  the 
gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  [Mr.  Drayton,]  that  if  the  office 
of  Major  General  should  be  abolished,  a  Militia  Major  General 
would  then  command  an  officer  of  the  highest  rank  in  our  Army, 
should  regular  troops  and  militia  be  called  into  service  together. 
Even  if  we  should  admit  this  construction  of  the  law  to  be  correct, 
the  inconvenience  which  that  gentleman  apprehends,  would  never 
occur  in  point  of  fact.  The  army  is  now  on  a  peace  establish- 
ment. When  war  shall  threaten  us,  it  must  immediately  be  reor- 
ganized. We  must  then  call  into  existence  a  new  head  to  the 
Army,  and  confer  upon  him  a  rank  which  will  entitle  him  to  com- 
mand a  Major  General  of  Militia.  It  is  scarcely  possible,  there- 
fore, that  the  case  supposed  by  the  gentleman  can  ever  exist. 

If  this  bill  should  pass,  it  will  afford  the  President  of  the 
United  States  an  opportunity  of  placing  at  the  head  of  the  Army, 
in  the  event  of  war,  an  able  and  an  efficient  man,  and  relieve  the 
country  from  the  danger  of  having  that  station  pre-occupied  by 
a  superannuated  officer.  In  the  mean  time,  no  inconvenience  can 
be  experienced.  The  President  is  Commander-in-Chief  of  the 
Army ;  and  it  is  his  duty  to  decide  the  question  of  rank,  which  has 
so  long  existed,  between  the  two  Brigadier  Generals.  The  one 
or  the  other  of  them  will  then  be  the  chief  officer  of  the  Army. 
But  it  was  not  my  intention  to  discuss  the  main  question ;  I  rose 
merely  to  defend  the  Militia,  and  I  shall  proceed  no  further. 

********** 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  felt  himself  bound  to  reply  to  some 
of  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  [Mr.  Mc- 
Duffie.]  That  gentleman  has  been  pleased  to  say  that  I  had 
made  a  grand  discovery  when  I  found  out  that  the  army  of  the 
United  States  ought  to  be  left  without  a  head  in  time  of  peace. 
He  has  also  endeavored  to  prove  that  the  principles  which  I 
advocated  would  result  in  abolishing  all  the  officers  in  the  army. 
Indeed,  from  the  tenor  of  his  observations,  it  might  be  supposed 
that  I  had  expressed  a  desire  to  destroy  the  whole  military  estab- 
lishment of  the  country — horse,  foot,  and  dragoons. 

That  gentleman  has  not  only  done  me  injustice  in  the  manner 
he  has  stated  the  proposition  which  I  advocated,  but  he  has  drawn 
the  most  unnatural  and  the  most  illogical  inferences  from  my 
argument. 


1828]  OFFICE  OF  MAJOR  GENERAL  369 

It  is  well  known  that,  up  to  the  rank  of  Colonel,  the  officers 
have  a  right  to  be  regularly  promoted.  Beyond  that  rank,  no  such 
right  exists.  At  that  point  regular  promotions,  according  to 
seniority,  cease.  Within  this  limit,  I  trust  I  should  be  one  of  the 
last  men  in  this  House  who  would  attempt  to  interfere.  I  shall 
ever  hold  all  existing  rights  of  the  officers  sacred.  But  what  is 
the  case  above  the  rank  of  Colonel?  It  has  been  the  uniform 
practice  of  this  government  to  leave  the  discretion  of  the  Presi- 
dent unfettered,  and  to  allow  him  to  select  general  officers  from 
the  mass  of  the  American  people.  Why  has  this  practice  pre- 
vailed ?  Is  it  not  to  enable  the  President  to  select  such  men  to  fill 
the  high  offices  of  the  army  as  may  be  best  able  to  serve  their 
country?  Our  present  army  is  emphatically  a  peace  establish- 
ment. Its  present  organization  never  was  intended  for  a  state 
of  war.  I  wish,  therefore  to  leave  every  avenue  open,  which  I 
can  do  with  a  proper  regard  to  the  existing  state  of  things,  for  the 
purpose  of  enabling  the  President,  in  the  day  of  danger,  to  fill  the 
high  offices  of  the  army  with  efficient  commanders.  And  yet  the 
gentleman  from  S.  Carolina  has  contended  that  my  argument, 
which  was  specially  confined  to  the  office  of  Major  General,  would 
equally  apply  to  officers  of  every  grade,  and  lead  to  the  destruction 
of  the  whole  army. 

The  case  of  General  Brown  will  strikingly  illustrate  the  truth 
of  the  proposition  for  which  I  contended.  He  was  a  great  mili- 
tary man.  Nature  had  made  him  a  commander.  He  commenced 
his  career  in  the  militia,  and  then  was  appointed  a  General  in  the 
service  of  the  United  States.  During  the  last  war,  he  not  only 
distinguished  himself,  but  he  distinguished  his  country.  But  I 
would  ask  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina,  whether  General 
Brown,  for  years  before  his  death,  would  have  been  fit  to  take 
the  command  of  the  army,  and  go  into  active  service?  Time  and 
disease  had  laid  their  heavy  hands  upon  him,  and  had  rendered 
him  wholly  unable  to  take  the  field  against  an  enemy.  In  con- 
sidering this  subject,  we  should  never  forget  that  the  present  army 
is  emphatically  upon  a  peace  establishment;  and  that,  by  abolish- 
ing the  office  of  Major  General,  when  danger  shall  threaten,  and 
when  it  becomes  necessary  to  organize  our  military  establishment 
for  a  state  of  war,  the  field  of  competition  for  the  highest  office  in 
it  will  be  left  entirely  open.  The  President  may  then  select  the 
most  capable  man  in  the  country  for  that  arduous  station,  whether 
he  be  found  in  the  militia,  the  regular  army,  or  among  the 
private  citizens  of  our  country.     It  is  certain  he  ought  to  be  an 

24 


370  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

efficient  man,  capable  of  rendering  his  country  service,  and  not 
a  superannuated  officer. 

In  order  to  accomplish  this  purpose,  however,  I  would  not 
disturb  any  man  living.  I  would  not  think  of  abolishing  the 
office,  either  of  Scott  or  of  Gaines,  even  if  they  were  less  worthy 
of  their  country's  gratitude,  although  I  do  not  believe  both  to  be 
necessary.  But  when  either  of  them  shall  die  or  shall  resign, 
Congress  ought,  in  my  opinion,  to  act  upon  the  same  principle, 
and  leave  but  a  single  Brigadier  General  at  the  head  of  the  army. 

I  have  thought  it  necessary  to  say  thus  much,  to  redeem 
myself  from  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina. 
I  thought  it  due  to  myself,  considering  the  respectable  source 
from  which  they  came,  not  to  suffer  them  to  go  before  the  public 
unanswered.  I  should  think  the  saving  of  money  to  the  Treasury 
an  inconsiderable  object,  though  it  ought  to  be  altogether  disre- 
garded, provided  the  services  of  a  Major  General  were  required 
by  the  army.  I  shall  not  reply  to  the  other  observations  of  the 
gentleman.  That  task  has  already  been  performed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Virginia,  [Mr.  Smyth,]  in  a  much  better  manner  than 
it  could  have  been  accomplished  by  me. 


ADDRESS,  JUNE,  1828, 
on  the  establishment  of  common  schools.1 

Friends  and  Fellow-Citizens. 

The  spectacle  which  I  now  behold,  recalls  strongly  to  my 
memory  the  days  of  other  years.  The  scene  now  before  me,  pre- 
sents nearly  the  same  appearance  that  it  did,  nineteen  years  ago, 
when  a  graduate  of  Dickinson  College,  with  trembling  anxiety, 
I  first  addressed  a  public  audience.  But  although  the  appear- 
ance is  the  same,  how  changed  is  the  reality!  Since  then,  the 
silent  but  mighty  current  of  time,  which  is  continually  sweeping 
away  the  successive  generations  of  men,  has  driven  many  of  my 
collegiate  friends  &  companions  upon  that  peaceful  shore, 
where  "  the  wicked  cease  from  troubling  &  the  weary  are  at 
rest."  The  pencil  of  fancy  cannot  paint, — the  heart  alone  can 
feel,  the  melancholy  pleasure,  which  that  man  enjoys,  who  for 
a  long  period  of  years,  has  been  buffeting  the  storms  of  life,  when 
in  the  hour  of  calm  reflection,  he  looks  back  upon  the  literary 

1  Buchanan  Papers,  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania.  This  address, 
the  manuscript  of  which  is  in  Buchanan's  own  handwriting,  was  apparently 
delivered  at  Dickinson  College  in  June,  1828. 


1828]  COMMON  SCHOOLS  371 

solitude,  the  tranquillity — and  the  comparative  happiness  of  his 
collegiate  years.  Such  have  been  my  feelings,  upon  revisiting 
my  alma  mater. 

Since  I  ceased  to  be  under  her  protection,  I  have  been  an 
anxious  spectator  of  the  vicissitudes  of  her  fortune.  I  have 
rejoiced  in  her  prosperity  &  mourned  over  her  adversity:  and 
I  am  happy  now  to  be  able  to  congratulate  the  numerous  friends 
of  Dickinson  College  throughout  the  country,  upon  the  high 
character  which  she  has  so  justly  acquired.  Long  may  she  con- 
tinue to  be  the  seat  of  piety,  of  learning,  &  of  extensive  use- 
fulness ! 

It  is  my  intention,  upon  the  present  occasion,  to  address  you 
upon  the  peculiar  importance  of  universal  education,  under  our 
form  of  government; — &  to  urge  the  necessity  &  propriety 
of  establishing  primary  or  common  schools  by  law,  throughout 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  I  shall  not  dwell  upon  the  advantages 
of  classical  learning, — of  that  education  which  is  necessary 
to  form  great  statesmen,  great  philosophers,  or  great  divines. 
This  subject  has  been  so  often  discussed,  that  every  argument 
has  already  been  exhausted, — every  flower  has  already  been 
culled.  To  dispute  the  advantages  of  a  classical  education,  in 
the  nineteenth  century,  would  be  an  act  of  barbarism,  at  war 
with  the  genius  of  the  present  age,  &  suited  only  to  the  igno- 
rance, the  superstition  &  the  despotism  of  ages  which  have  long 
since  fled. 

My  present  purpose  is,  to  advocate  that  system  of  common 
education,  which  like  the  light  of  heaven,  extends  its  advantages 
to  all;  &  which  will  tend  to  make  every  citizen  of  this  vast 
Republic  wiser  &  better, — more  sensible  of  the  blessings  of  civil 
&  religious  liberty  which  he  enjoys,  &  more  firm  &  determined 
in  defending  them,  against  every  attack. 

The  history  of  the  world,  until  the  American  revolution,  pre- 
sented a  melancholy  spectacle.  Since  the  days  of  Nimrod,  the 
mighty  hunter  whose  prey  was  man,  &  who  established  the 
first  empire  over  his  fellow  men,  a  war  has  been  waged,  between 
the  lust  of  dominion,  &  the  love  of  liberty, — between  power 
&  right, — between  the  few  &  the  many, — the  rulers  &  the  ruled. 
In  this  contest,  the  rights  of  the  people  have  been  almost 
uniformly  sacrificed,  upon  the  altar  of  ambition  &  power.  Al- 
though the  sun  of  liberty  had,  occasionally  &  at  long  inter- 
vals, arisen,  &  beamed  upon  small  &  detached  portions  of 
our  globe;    yet,   after  a  short  period,   it  had  been  uniformly 


372  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

obscured,  until  at  length  it  arose  upon  our  favored  land,  I  trust 
never  to  set.  The  hopes  of  the  human  race  rest  upon  the  grand 
experiment,  which  we  are  now  making.  Is  man  fit  for  self 
government?  Our  history  must  decide  this  all-important  ques- 
tion. Upon  our  success  depends  the  liberty  of  millions  yet  un- 
born, in  all  future  generations.  The  empire  of  superstition  & 
of  despotism  is  now  tottering  throughout  the  civilized  world. 
Whether  it  shall  finally  fall  will  depend  upon  the  virtue  &  the 
wisdom  of  the  American  people.  We  are,  at  this  day,  the  only 
people  upon  earth,  in  the  enjoyment  of  rational  liberty.  That 
dawn  which  promised  so  fair  &  so  bright  a  day,  upon  the 
Southern  portion  of  our  Continent,  has  been  over-clouded.  South 
America  is,  &  forever  will  be,  free  from  the  dominion  of 
Spain : — but  whether  the  present  generation,  who  have  been  edu- 
cated under  a  severe  &  jealous  despotism,  be  capable  of  self 
government,  is  a  question  which  yet  remains  to  be  decided. 

Our  forefathers  fled  from  the  old  world  to  the  wilds  of 
America,  to  escape  from  religious  persecution,  &  to  enjoy  the 
liberty  of  worshipping  their  God,  according  to  the  dictates  of  their 
own  conscience.  These  pilgrims  caught  a  spark  of  civil  liberty, 
from  the  altar  of  their  religion,  which  they  continued  to  cherish, 
until  at  length  it  burst  forth  in  the  flame  of  the  American  Revo- 
lution. We  became  independent;  and  we  have  established  the 
most  perfect,  but  at  the  same  time,  the  most  complicated  form 
of  Government  which  the  world  ever  witnessed.  We  have  re- 
duced into  successful  practice,  that  which  had  been  considered 
impracticable,  an  imperium  in  imperio.  We  have  constituted 
a  General  Government,  to  manage  the  common  interests  of  the 
whole  American  people;  whilst  we  have  established  twenty  four 
State  Sovereignties,  to  take  care  of  the  individual  or  separate 
interests  of  the  people,  within  their  respective  territorial  juris- 
dictions. The  attraction  of  the  General  Government,  ought  to 
be  no  greater  than  is  sufficient  to  preserve  the  States,  within 
their  proper  orbits.  Should  the  day  ever  arrive,  when  its  in- 
fluence shall  become  so  powerful,  as  to  draw  the  States  within 
its  vortex,  &  to  consolidate  them  with  itself,  the  glory  of  our 
Republic  will  then  be  at  an  end.  We  may  then  exclaim,  with  the 
pious  yEneas: 

"  Fuimus   Troes,   fuit  Ilium,   et  ingens 
Gloria  Teucrorum." 

On  the  other  hand,  disunion  is  equally  to  be  dreaded  with 
consolidation.     The  freedom  &  the  happiness  of  the  American 


1828]  COMMON  SCHOOLS  373 

people  are  equally  at  war  with  both.  Should  the  tendency 
towards  disunion,  become  too  powerful  to  be  controlled  by  the 
federal  Government,  then  the  States 

"  will  run  lawless  through  the  void, 
Destroying    others,    by    themselves    destroyed." 

In  medio  tutissimus  ibis. 

This  complex  Government,  in  all  its  various  branches, 
springs  from  the  people,  &  must  be  sustained  by  the  people. 
Each  elector  in  this  country  is  a  sovereign,  in  the  strictest  sense 
of  the  word.  He  is  answerable  to  no  tribunal,  but  that  of  God 
&  his  own  conscience,  for  his  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage. 
This  nicely  balanced  machine,  therefore,  can  only  be  kept  in 
regular  motion, — the  relative  rights  of  the  union  and  of  the 
States  can  only  be  preserved  inviolate  by  an  enlightened  & 
intelligent  people.  Education  lies  at  the  very  root  of  all  our 
Institutions, — it  is  the  foundation  upon  which  alone,  they  can 
repose  in  safety.  Shall  the  people  be  educated,  is  a  question  not 
of  mere  policy;  but  it  is  a  question  of  life  &  death,  upon  which 
the  existence  of  our  present  form  of  Government  depends. 

Intelligence  among  the  people  has  now  become  still  more 
necessary,  than  it  has  ever  been,  since  the  adoption  of  the  Federal 
constitution.  Our  Government  has  hitherto  been  kept  in  pros- 
perous motion,  by  the  heroes  &  the  statesmen  of  the  revolution. 
The  influence  of  their  opinion  has  had  a  most  powerful  effect  in 
directing  &  controlling  the  public  will.  Most  of  them  are  now 
sleeping  with  their  fathers,  and  those  who  remain  with  us  are 
but  the  feeble  relicks  of  another  age.  There  is  now  no  man,  nor 
no  set  of  men  in  this  country,  either  would  or  ought  to  have  a 
commanding  influence  over  their  countrymen.  Our  political 
fathers, — the  founders  of  the  Republic  are  gone,  &  under  Provi- 
dence, we  must  now  depend  upon  ourselves. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  observe,  before  this  enlightened 
audience,  that  it  would  be  at  war  with  the  vital  principle  of  our 
Republic,  to  confine  education  to  any  particular  class.  Where 
there  is  universal  suffrage,  there  ought  to  be  universal  education. 
These  are  the  main  pillars,  upon  which  our  temple  of  liberty  rests. 
In  the  language  of  the  declaration  of  independence,  "  all  men 
are  born  equal."  Distinctions  of  rank,  &  a  monied  aristocracy 
may  be  necessary  to  sustain  a  throne;  but  they  would  be  death 
to  a  Republic.  Patriotism  is  a  hardy  virtue  which  flourishes  with 
as  much  vigor  in  the  soil  of  poverty,  as  that  of  affluence.     The 


374  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

man  who  has  but  little  wealth  to  love,  will  love  his  country,  & 
his  privileges  as  a  freeman,  with  the  greater  ardor.  Add  intelli- 
gence to  the  patriotism  of  such  men,  and  you  will  constitute  the 
best  citizens  of  a  free  state. 

As,  then,  we  value  our  inestimable  rights  &  privileges: — 
as  we  value  the  perpetuity  of  our  happy  form  of  Government 
which  has  protected  our  lives,  our  liberty  &  our  property,  & 
has  enabled  each  one  of  us  to  repose  in  security  under  our  own 
vine  &  our  own  fig  tree  &  there  has  been  none  to  make  us 
afraid: — as  we  value  our  religious  liberty  &  the  privilege  of 
worshipping  our  God,  according  to  the  dictates  of  our  own  con- 
science, in  a  land  where  there  is  little  bigotry,  because  there  has 
been  no  persecution,  &  where  sects  which  have  been  hostile 
in  other  countries,  can  live  together  in  harmony,  feeling  no  other 
emulation,  but  which  shall  be  the  most  pious,  the  most  useful, 
&  the  most  devotedly  attached  to  their  common  country: — 
As  we  value  all  these  precious  privileges,  let  us  unite,  heart  & 
hand,  each  one  in  his  sphere,  &  never  cease  to  exert  ourselves, 
until  the  benefits  of  a  common  education  shall  be  conferred  upon 
every  citizen  of  this  great  &  extensive  Commonwealth. 

The  next  question  which  demands  our  consideration,  is, 
ought  common  schools  to  be  established  by  law,  for  the  educa- 
tion [of]  the  people?  To  answer  this  question  will  be  but  an 
easy  task.  The  history  of  the  world  has  established  the  truth  of 
the  position,  that  there  is  no  other  effectual  method  of  imparting 
education  to  all;  but  by  means  of  public  schools.  This  system 
is  not  an  untried  experiment.  It  has  long  been  in  successful 
operation  in  the  States  of  New  England,  &  in  New  York;  & 
their  experience  is  conclusive,  that  it  will  answer  the  purpose  for 
which  it  is  intended.  In  establishing  it,  then,  we  shall  not  have  to 
grope  our  way  in  the  dark ;  but  we  shall  be  guided  by  the  lights 
of  experience.  The  expense  of  the  system  has  not  been  found 
oppressive  even  among  the  cold  &  barren  hills  of  New  England : 
shall  it  then  be  dreaded  by  those  whose  lot  has  been  cast,  amidst 
the  rich  &  fertile  valleys  of  Pennsylvania?  The  system  is  very 
simple.  It  proposes  to  divide  our  counties  into  convenient  school 
Districts,  &  to  tax  the  inhabitants  of  each  District,  in  propor- 
tion to  their  taxable  property,  for  the  maintenance  of  a  common 
or  primary  school,  for  the  education  of  all  the  children  within 
its  boundaries.  Our  laws  have  already  provided  the  officers 
necessary  to  assess  &  collect  this  tax, — &  the  tax-gatherer  might 
receive  it  from  the  people,  at  the  same  time  that  he  collects  the 


1828]  COMMON  SCHOOLS  375 

county  rates  &  levies.  It  is  not  my  purpose,  however,  to  go  into 
detail. 

Without  urging  any  further  the  argument  derived  from  the 
experience  of  our  sister  States,  let  us  inquire  whether  it  is  not 
our  duty  to  follow  their  example.  The  great  Spartan  law  giver 
resolved  "  the  whole  business  of  legislation  into  the  bringing 
up  of  youth."  In  his  opinion  the  chief  duty  of  a  state  was  to 
provide  for  the  education  of  its  citizens.  To  prove  that  we 
ought  to  establish  common  schools,  it  would  only  be  necessary  to 
ask  two  plain  &  simple  questions.  Is  it  not  the  duty  of  our  Gov- 
ernment to  provide  for  its  own  preservation  ?  Are  we  not  bound 
to  transmit  the  liberty  which  we  have  inherited  from  our  fathers 
unimpaired  to  our  posterity.  If  these  be  solemn  duties  which 
we  owe  to  our  God,  and  to  our  country;  they  can  be  performed 
effectually,  in  no  other  manner,  than  by  teaching  our  children 
to  know  &  to  prize  their  rights.  An  ignorant  people,  no  matter 
how  virtuous  they  may  be,  are  easily  misled.  Besides  vice  is  the 
natural  companion  of  ignorance,  whilst  virtue  loves  to  dwell  with 
knowledge.  Although  poets  have  presented  to  us  the  most 
glowing  pictures  of  the  innocence  &  simplicity  of  man  in  a 
state  of  nature;  although  they  have  described  that  state  as  the 
golden  age  of  the  human  race: — yet  history  &  experience 
have  taught  us,  that  these  are  but  the  dreams  of  fancy,  &  that 
man,  in  his  savage  state,  is  selfish  &  cruel — &  that  his  heart 
burns  with  fierce  &  ungovernable  passions.  Education  is  as 
necessary  to  correct  his  heart,  as  to  inform  his  understanding. 
Virtue  &  knowledge  must  unite  &  exert  their  joint  influence 
over  the  American  people ;  or  our  Republic  must  fall  a  prey  to 
some  factious  demagogue,  or  some  military  usurper.  And  shall 
not  our  Legislation  provide  for  that  education  which  is  essential 
to  the  existence  of  our  Government : — a  Government,  which  not 
only  secures  our  own  safety  &  happiness;  but  which  has  been 
elevated  on  high,  &  become  the  beacon  light  of  liberty,  to  cheer 
the  wise  &  the  good  throughout  the  nations,  &  teach  them  to  hope, 
even  amid  the  gloom  of  despotism. 

To  a  Being  of  superior  intelligence,  what  a  strange  spectacle 
would  our  Commonwealth  present!  Whilst  we  are  straining 
every  nerve  to  improve  the  State ; — whilst  our  Government  is  ex- 
pending vast  sums  to  draw  forth  all  its  physical  resources,  the 
very  beings  themselves,  for  whose  advantage  these  great  works 
have  been  undertaken,  are  neglected.  In  our  different  counties, 
we  cheerfully  submit  to  be  taxed  for  the  erection  of  bridges,  for 


376  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

making  &  keeping  our  public  roads  in  repair,  &  for  many  other 
purposes.  Shall  we,  then,  not  agree  to  be  taxed,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  cultivating  the  minds  of  our  children,  &  teaching  them 
to  be  wise,  to  be  virtuous,  &  to  be  pious?  Shall  we  consent  to 
contribute  for  the  improvement  of  every  thing,  except  ourselves? 

The  establishment  of  common  schools  would  elevate  the 
character  of  our  schoolmasters,  who  next  to  the  clergy,  occupy 
the  most  important  station  in  society.  Next  to  the  influence 
of  the  mother,  that  of  the  schoolmaster  is  felt  throughout  life. 
And  here  it  may  be  proper  to  inquire,  what  ought  to  be  the  quali- 
fications of  an  instructor  of  youth?  He  should  command  the 
respect,  &  the  veneration  of  the  pupils  committed  to  his  charge. 
He  should  understand  the  human  character,  &  know  when  to  be 
severe,  &  when  to  be  merciful, — when  to  display  the  terrors  of 
authority,  &  when  to  draw  the  youthful  mind  by  the  cords  of 
affection.  Before  he  attempts  to  instruct  others,  he  ought  him- 
self to  be  instructed.  What  is  the  state  of  the  case  under  the 
existing  system?  The  occupation  of  a  country  schoolmaster  is 
one  to  which  but  few  men  resort,  who  are  capable  of  discharging 
its  all-important  duties.  When  such  men  resort  to  that  employ- 
ment, it  is  from  necessity,  not  from  choice.  All  are  willing  to 
abandon  it,  whenever  they  have  an  opportunity  of  embarking 
in  any  other  business.  The  consequence  is,  that  at  most  schools, 
there  is  a  rapid  succession  of  incompetent  schoolmasters,  who 
teach  children  nothing  correctly.  Instead  of  acquiring  a  taste 
for  knowledge,  which  would  accompany  them  through  life,  they 
become  disgusted  with  the  unmeaning  jargon  which  they  have 
been  taught  at  school,  &  ever  after  feel  an  aversion  to  the 
pursuit  of  knowledge.  Indeed,  such  is  now  the  situation  of  our 
schools  throughout  the  State,  that  in  many  instances,  parents 
feel  themselves  obliged  to  send  their  children  abroad  to  receive  a 
common  English  education ;  and  thus,  in  one  year,  incur  a  heavier 
expense,  than  their  proportion  of  the  tax  necessary  to  support  a 
common  school  would  amount  to,  in  an  ordinary  life  time. 

The  establishment  of  common  schools  would  be  a  remedy 
for  all  these  evils.  It  would  elevate  the  schoolmaster  to  that  rank 
in  society,  to  which  he  is  justly  entitled.  It  would  call  into 
that  profession  men  of  worth  &  capacity,  who  would  undertake 
the  education  of  youth,  not  as  a  mere  expedient,  but  as  a  per- 
manent employment.  It  would  place  such  men  above  the  caprice 
or  injustice  of  individuals,  by  affording  them  a  competent  & 
fixed  salary.     They  would  then  depend  not  upon  the  will  of  the 


1828]  COMMON  SCHOOLS  377 

few;  but  upon  that  of  a  majority  of  the  people,  within  their  re- 
spective school  Districts. 

Such  common  schools  would  collect  together  all  the  children 
of  the  District,  upon  terms  of  perfect  equality.  Each  child,  born 
within  the  State,  would  then  have  the  same  right  to  be  educated 
by  his  country,  that  he  now  has  to  breathe  its  air,  or  to  enjoy 
its  sunshine.  The  odious  distinction  which  at  present  exists, 
between  poor  scholars  whose  parents  are  unable  to  pay  for  their 
education,  &  the  other  children  of  the  school,  would  exist  no 
longer.  That  feeling  of  independence,  which  is  the  germ  of  every 
great  quality  &  every  Republican  virtue,  would  no  longer  be 
blunted  in  the  children  of  the  poor,  by  the  conscious  feeling,  that 
they  depended  upon  charity  for  their  education.  They  would 
no  longer  be  pointed  at  by  the  other  scholars,  as  objects  of  pity 
or  contempt.  All  the  pupils  at  a  public  school  would  meet  upon 
a  perfect  level,  &  among  them,  merit  would  be,  as  it  ought  to  be, 
the  only  distinction. 

Genius  is  a  plant  which  is  as  natural  to  the  soil  of  poverty 
as  that  of  affluence.  It  is  a  gift  which  Providence  scatters  with 
equal  profusion  among  the  children  of  the  cottage,  &  the  chil- 
dren of  the  palace.  But  without  common  schools,  in  what  manner 
is  the  bud  of  genius  in  the  offspring  of  the  poor  to  be  expanded? 
Establish  these  schools,  &  then  those  gifted  children,  who 
possess  extraordinary  powers  of  mind,  will  have  a  field  presented 
to  them  by  their  country,  upon  which  to  display  their  talents. 
This  display  will  transplant  them,  from  the  common  school  to 
the  College,  &  will  procure  for  them  an  opportunity  to  exercise 
those  powers  for  the  benefit  of  mankind,  which  would  otherwise 
have  lain  dormant,  in  the  oblivion  of  poverty.  The  "  village 
Hampdens,  that  with  dauntless  breast "  would  otherwise  have 
only  withstood  "the  little  tyrant  of  their  fields,"  will  be  called  into 
the  service  of  their  country  to  defend  its  rights  &  its  liberties. 
And  the  mute  inglorious  Miltons  will  elevate  the  character  of  the 
nation,  by  singing  in  the  sweetest  strains  of  Epic  poetry.  In  our 
country,  we  shall  no  longer  realize  the  complaint  of  the  poet ;  that 

"  Full  many  a  gem,  of  purest  ray  serene, 
The  dark  unfathom'd  caves  of  ocean  bear : 
Full  many  a  flow'r  is  born  to  blush  unseen, 
And  waste  its  sweetness  on  the  desert  air." 

This  system,  by  introducing  among  the  people  a  general 
love  of  knowledge,  would  not  only  be  a  rich  source  of  individual 
happiness,   but  a  powerful   preventive   of  vice  &  immorality. 


378  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

Who  that  can  enjoy  himself  at  home  in  the  pursuit  of  knowledge 
will  ever  be  tempted  to  fly  to  the  gambling  table  or  to  the  tavern 
for  amusement  ?  Such  a  man  has  a  source  of  calm  and  rational 
enjoyment  within  himself,  always  at  command,  which  will  pre- 
serve him  from  those  boisterous  &  sensual  pleasures  which  prey 
both  upon  the  body  &  upon  the  soul.  No  greater  blessing  can 
be  conferred  upon  any  people  than  to  inspire  them  with  a  love 
of  knowledge.     Religion  &  virtue  must  follow  in  its  train. 

It  has  been  &  it  may  be  objected  to  this  system  that  it  is  un- 
equal &  unjust ;  because  it  imposes  a  tax  upon  property,  without 
regarding  whether  the  owners  have  many  or  few  children  to  be 
educated,  or  even  whether  they  have  any.  This  objection  is  more 
specious  than  solid.  Is  it  not  just  that  the  rich  man  should  con- 
tribute towards  this  tax,  as  he  now  does  to  others,  in  proportion 
to  the  property  which  he  has  to  protect  ?  Shall  he  pay  cheerfully, 
in  proportion  to  his  wealth  for  the  purpose  of  administering  the 
Government;  and  yet  refuse  to  be  taxed  in  the  same  proportion 
to  diffuse  education  among  the  people,  upon  which  the  very 
existence  of  the  Government  depends? 

But  again.  The  rich  man  ought  to  remember  that  he  may 
become  poor;  and  that  even  should  fortune  continue  to  smile 
upon  him,  all  his  days,  his  posterity  may  be  compelled  to  eat  the 
bitter  bread  of  poverty.  There  is  no  country  upon  the  face  of 
the  earth,  in  which  "  riches  so  often  take  to  themselves  wings 
&  fly  away,"  as  in  our  own.  How  many  estates  have  been  lost 
in  our  day,  by  a  wild  spirit  of  speculation  ?  How  often  have  we 
witnessed  the  hard  earnings  of  a  life  of  avarice  &  toil,  squandered 
in  a  few  years  by  the  profligacy  of  an  heir? 

The  division  &  subdivision  of  estates,  under  our  laws, 
without  any  other  cause,  will  of  itself,  in  the  course  of  a  few 
generations  cut  up  the  largest  estates  into  small  fractions.  The 
struggle  for  wealth  which  is  forever  carried  on  throughout  this 
country  is  perpetually  elevating  the  poor  &  depressing  the  rich. 
A  wise  man  who  looks  through  the  vista  of  futurity  &  reflects 
upon  the  vicissitudes  of  human  fortune,  will  calculate  that 
although  Providence,  in  his  generation,  may  have  caused  his 
cup  to  overflow;  yet  that  in  future  generations  not  remote,  his 
posterity  may  be  doomed  to  suffer  the  miseries  of  poverty.  What 
more  glorious  legacy  then  can  he  leave  his  children  than  a  pledge 
sanctified  by  the  laws  of  his  country,  and  which  will  endure  as 
long  as  they  shall  endure,  that  his  descendants  shall  receive  a 
religious  &  virtuous  education?     That  if  he  has,   in  his  day, 


1828]  COMMON  SCHOOLS  379 

out  of  his  abundance,  paid  a  little  more  than  his  proportion  of 
the  tax  to  establish  common  schools,  he  has  thereby  secured  to  his 
posterity,  whether  they  be  in  affluence  or  in  poverty,  the  innumer- 
able blessings  which  flow  from  piety  &  knowledge.  He  casts 
his  bread  upon  the  waters,  and  if  it  should  not  return  to  bless 
him  during  his  pilgrimage,  it  will  assuredly  return  after  many 
days  to  bless  his  posterity. 

Before  I  take  my  seat,  I  shall  advert  to  another  topic.  I 
will  apply  the  general  argument  in  favor  of  Common  Schools  to 
the  peculiar  situation  of  Pennsylvania.  If  my  voice  could  be 
heard  throughout  the  Commonwealth,  I  would  address  her  State 
pride  &  invoke  its  aid  in  the  cause  of  common  education.  It 
would  be  enlisting  a  noble  principle  in  defence  of  a  good  cause. 
When  State  pride  is  confined  within  proper  limits, — when  it  is  not 
jealous  of  a  sister's  fame ;  but  can  admire  excellence  in  her,  even 
if  she  be  a  rival,  it  becomes  the  parent  of  many  public  virtues. 
It  teaches  us  to  love  our  native  soil  with  more  devotion, — it  iden- 
tifies the  feelings  of  the  individual  with  those  of  his  State, — it 
makes  him  glory  in  her  prosperity  &  in  her  fame  as  though 
they  were  his  own,  and  it  stimulates  us  to  a  vigorous  contest 
with  our  Sister  States,  for  the  palm  of  excellence.  Shall  Pennsyl- 
vania, then,  look  with  cold  indifference  upon  the  system  of  com- 
mon Schools  which  is  now  established  throughout  New  York 
&  the  New  England  States,  and  make  no  effort  to  communicate 
the  same  advantages  to  her  own  citizens  ?  Shall  a  common  edu- 
cation be  the  birth  right  of  every  man  who  draws  his  first  breath 
in  New  York  or  in  Massachusetts,  and  shall  the  native  citizen  of 
Pennsylvania  be  doomed  to  ignorance  by  the  neglect  of  his  native 
State?  Shall  we  patiently  behold  other  States  contending  for 
that  moral  power  in  the  union  which  must  ever  spring  from 
knowledge,  without  making  a  single  effort  in  the  glorious  cause 
of  education  ?     I  trust  not.     I  hope  for  better  things. 

Pennsylvania  is  destined  to  exert  an  influence  over  her 
Sister  States  superior  to  that  of  any  other  member  of  the  Confed- 
eracy. Her  position  is  in  the  centre  of  the  Confederacy,  and  the 
character  of  her  citizens  eminently  qualifies  her  to  hold  the 
balance  steadily  between  the  East  &  the  West, — the  North  & 
the  South.  She  is  jealous  of  none  of  her  sisters, — nor  has  she 
incurred  the  jealousy  of  any  of  them.  Her  stake  in  the  preser- 
vation of  the  union  is  probably  greater  than  that  of  any  other 
State.  Should  the  union  ever  be  dissolved,  which  God  forbid! 
she  is  destined  to  become  the  Flanders  of  America.     Whilst  it 


380  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1828 

shall  continue,  she  must  be  prosperous, — she  must  act  a  distin- 
guished part  among  her  sisters,  either  for  good  or  for  evil.  She 
cannot,  if  she  would,  stand  still.  With  what  amazing  force, 
then,  does  the  language  of  the  father  of  his  Country  apply  to 
her !  "  In  proportion  as  the  structure  of  a  government  gives 
force  to  public  opinion,  it  is  essential  that  public  opinion  should 
be  enlightened/'  The  diffusion  of  education  among  her  citizens 
may  &  probably  will  produce  a  lasting  influence  upon  "  ages 
unborn  &  nations  yet  behind."  We  owe  it  to  ourselves  &  to 
our  children, — we  owe  it  to  our  Sister  States, — we  owe  it  to  the 
world,  to  establish  Common  Schools  for  the  education  of  a  popu- 
lation which  must  exercise  such  an  influence  upon  the  preserva- 
tion of  our  glorious  union  &  upon  the  destinies  of  mankind. 

Whilst  advocating  this  system,  I  wish  distinctly  to  be  under- 
stood, that  I  would  not  have  it  forced  upon  the  people  against 
their  will,  by  their  Legislature.  The  best  cause  might  be  sacri- 
ficed by  such  an  arbitrary  exercise  of  power.  But  I  would,  if  I 
could,  convince  the  people  of  this  Commonwealth  of  the  vast 
importance  of  common  Schools  to  them  &  to  their  children  & 
I  would  persuade  them  to  command  their  Representatives  to 
enact  a  law  for  their  establishment. 

In  conclusion,  I  shall  observe,  that  if  the  base  passion  of 
envy  could  ever  be  excused,  a  man  ambitious  of  true  glory  might 
almost  be  justified,  in  envying  the  fame  of  that  favored  mortal, 
whoever  he  shall  be,  whom  Providence  intends  to  make  the  instru- 
ment in  establishing  common  Schools  throughout  Pennsylvania. 
His  fame  will  exceed  that  of  the  great  Clinton,  in  the  same  pro- 
portion that  mind  is  superior  to  matter.  Whilst  the  one  has 
erected  a  frail  memorial  which  like  every  thing  human,  must  in 
the  course  of  ages  decay  &  perish ;  the  other  will  erect  a  monu- 
ment which  shall  flourish  in  immortal  youth  &  endure  whilst 
the  soul  of  man  shall  continue  to  exist. 


REMARKS,  DECEMBER  11,  1828, 

ON  THE  EXTENSION  OF    THE  TERM  OF    EXPORTATIONS  WITH 
BENEFIT  OF  DRAWBACKS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  it  was  his  intention  to  vote  in  favor  of 
the  bill,  and  he  wished,  in  a  few  words,  to  state  his  reasons.  It  is 
true,  as  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Wicklifre]  has  stated, 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  2  Sess.  1828-1829,  V.  98-99. 


1828]  TERM  OF  EXPORTATIONS  381 

that  the  passage  of  this  bill  will  diminish  our  annual  revenue  from 
$130,000  to  $160,000.  The  question,  then,  is,  will  the  object 
sought  to  be  accomplished  more  than  indemnify  the  country  for 
this  loss  of  revenue?  He  thought  it  would.  The  bill  rests  upon 
a  very  simple  principle.  Great  Britain  is  struggling  to  obtain 
the  carrying  trade  of  the  world.  She  has  established  free  ports 
throughout  her  extensive  dominions,  in  which  her  merchants  may 
deposite  foreign  merchandise  without  the  payment  of  any  transit 
duty.  The  wise  principle  upon  which  she  acts,  is,  to  burthen  her 
foreign  trade  as  little  as  possible.  It  passes  free  through  her 
dominions  to  foreign  countries. 

The  question,  then,  is,  shall  the  American  merchant  be  placed 
upon  the  same  footing?  Great  Britain  is  our  great  rival  for  the 
carrying  trade;  and  ought  we  not  to  enable  our  merchants  to 
struggle  against  this  powerful  competition  with  the  same  ad- 
vantages which  her  merchants  possess?  Our  laws  impose  a 
transit  duty  of  two  and  a  half  per  cent,  upon  the  existing  rate  of 
duty,  on  all  foreign  merchandise  imported  into  the  United  States, 
to  be  transported  to  foreign  countries.  This  operates  as  a  dis- 
criminating duty  in  favor  of  the  English  and  against  the  Amer- 
ican merchant.  All  other  circumstances  being  equal,  it  would,  in 
effect,  be  a  premium  to  that  amount,  to  enable  the  foreign  mer- 
chants to  undersell  our  merchants  in  foreign  markets.  The 
simple  question,  then,  is,  shall  we  protect  our  foreign  commerce 
by  affording  it  the  same  advantages  with  the  foreign  commerce 
of  Great  Britain? 

At  the  last  session  of  Congress,  Mr.  B.  said,  he  had  exerted 
all  his  feeble  abilities  to  promote  the  passage  of  a  law  for  the  pro- 
tection of  agriculture  and  manufactures.  He  considered  com- 
merce equally  entitled  to  our  favor.  Its  protection  was  equally 
a  part  of  the  great  American  System.  The  duty  which  he  felt 
he  owed  to  the  commerce  and  the  mercantile  interest  of  the  coun- 
try, would  not  suffer  him  to  vote  against  this  bill.  It  was  cal- 
culated to  build  up  our  foreign  trade,  and  enable  our  merchants 
to  enter  into  a  fair  competition  with  the  merchants  of  the  other 
commercial  nations  of  the  world. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  then  taken,  and  stood  as  follows : 
yeas  153,  nays  28. 

So  the  bill  was  passed,  and  sent  to  the  Senate. 


382  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

REMARKS,  DECEMBER  23,  1828, 

ON  THE  BILL  FOR  THE  OCCUPATION  OF  THE  OREGON  RIVER.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  was  not  unfriendly  to  the  bill,  but  thought  its 
language  ought  to  be  studied  with  great  care,  lest  the  nation 
should  inadvertently  compromit  its  own  rights.  He  disliked  that 
feature  in  the  amendment  which  proposed  a  monopoly  to  one  com- 
pany of  forty  miles  square;  and,  believing  that  the  subject  re- 
quired more  mature  consideration,  moved  that  the  Committee  rise, 
and  it  rose  accordingly. 


1829. 
AMENDMENT,  JANUARY  15,  1829, 

TO  THE    CUMBERLAND  ROAD  BILL.2 

Mr.  Buchanan  now  entered  the  House,  and  wished  to  offer 
an  amendment  to  the  Cumberland  road  bill. 

The  Chairman  said  that,  as  that  bill  had  been  laid  aside,  it 
would  not  be  regular  to  receive  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Buchanan  insisted  that,  so  long  as  the  Committee  re- 
mained in  session,  it  was  his  right  to  offer  an  amendment  to  any 
of  the  bills  it  had  had  under  consideration. 

The  Chairman  replied  that  the  case  was  new  to  him,  and  he 
deemed  such  a  course  irregular,  but  should  receive  the  amend- 
ment, if  the  Committee  unanimously  assented  to  it. 

Mr.  Bassett  now  withdrew  his  motion  for  the  rising  of  the 
committee,  and  no  objections  being  made,  Mr.  Buchanan  offered 
his  amendment,  which  went  to  strike  out  the  whole  of  the  bill, 
after  the  enacting  clause,  with  the  exception  of  one  hundred  thou- 
sand dollars,  to  put  the  road  in  repair;  and  to  provide,  in  sub- 
stance, that  the  several  parts  of  the  road  passing  through  different 
States  should  be  ceded  to  those  States  on  certain  conditions.  Mr. 
B.  after  a  few  general  observations  on  the  great  importance  of 
the  constitutional  question  involved  in  the  bill,  expressed  his 
desire,  that,  owing  to  the  feeble  state  of  his  health,  the  farther 
consideration  of  this  bill  might  be  postponed  till  Monday  next; 
which  being  agreed  to,  the  Committee  rose,  and  reported  the 
other  bills  to  the  House. 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  2  Sess.  1828-1829,  V.  126. 

2  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  2  Sess.  1828-1829,  V.  215. 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  383 

SPEECH,  JANUARY  19,  1829, 

ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD.1 

The  House  then  went  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the 
state  of  the  Union.  The  Committee,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Mercer, 
proceeded  to  consider  the  bill  for  the  preservation  and  repair  of 
the  Cumberland  road — the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Buchanan, 
which  went  to  strike  out  the  first  seven  sections  of  the  bill,  and  to 
provide,  in  substance,  that  the  several  parts  of  the  road  passing 
through  different  States  should  be  ceded  to  those  States,  provided 
they  would  erect  toll  gates  upon  it,  and  keep  it  in  repair,  being 
under  consideration. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  that  the  bill  and  the  amendment  now 
before  the  Committee  presented  a  subject  for  discussion  of  the 
deepest  interest  to  the  American  people.  It  is  not  a  question 
[said  Mr.  B.]  whether  we  shall  keep  the  road  in  repair  by  annual 
appropriations;  nor  whether  we  shall  expend  other  millions  in 
constructing  other  Cumberland  roads;  these  would  be  compara- 
tively unimportant:  but  it  is  a  question,  upon  the  determination 
of  which,  in  my  humble  judgment,  depends  the  continued  exist- 
ence of  the  Federal  constitution,  in  any  thing  like  its  native  purity. 
Let  it  once  be  established  that  the  Federal  Government  can  enter 
the  dominion  of  the  States;  interfere  with  their  domestic  con- 
cerns ;  erect  toll  gates  over  all  the  military,  commercial,  and  post 
roads,  within  their  territories,  and  define  and  punish,  by  laws  of 
Congress,  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  offences  committed 
upon  these  roads;  and  the  barriers,  which  were  erected  by  our 
ancestors  with  so  much  care,  between  Federal  and  State  power, 
are  entirely  prostrated.  This  single  act  would,  in  itself,  be  a 
longer  stride  towards  consolidation  than  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment have  ever  made ;  and  it  would  be  a  precedent  for  establish- 
ing a  construction  for  the  Federal  constitution  so  vague,  and  so 
indefinite,  that  it  might  be  made  to  mean  any  thing,  or  nothing. 

It  is  not  my  purpose,  upon  the  present  occasion,  again  to 
agitate  the  questions  which  have  so  often  been  discussed  in  this 
House,  as  to  the  powers  of  Congress  in  regard  to  Internal  Im- 
provements. For  my  own  part,  I  cheerfully  accord  to  the  Federal 
Government  the  power  of  subscribing  stock,  in  companies  incor- 
porated by  the  States,  for  the  purpose  of  making  roads  and 
canals ;  and  I  entertain  no  doubt  whatever,  but  that  we  can,  under 

1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  2  Sess.  1828-1829,  V.  240-244. 


384  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

the  constitution,  appropriate  the  money  of  our  constituents  directly 
to  the  construction  of  Internal  Improvements,  with  the  consent 
of  the  States  through  which  they  may  pass.  These  powers  I  shall 
ever  be  willing  to  exercise,  upon  all  proper  occasions.  But  I 
shall  never  be  driven  to  support  any  road  or  any  canal,  which  my 
judgment  disapproves,  by  a  fear  of  the  senseless  clamor  which 
is  always  attempted  to  be  raised  against  members  upon  this  floor, 
as  enemies  to  Internal  Improvement,  who  dare  to  vote  against  any 
measure  which  the  Committee  on  Roads  and  Canals  think  proper 
to  bring  before  this  House.  It  was  my  intention  to  discuss  the 
power  of  Congress  to  pass  the  bill,  and  its  policy,  separately. 
Upon  reflection,  I  find  these  subjects  are  so  intimately  blended, 
they  cannot  easily  be  separated.  I  shall,  therefore,  consider  them 
together. 

Before,  however,  I  enter  upon  the  subject,  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  present  a  short  historical  sketch  of  the  Cumberland  road. 
It  owes  its  origin  to  a  compact  between  the  State  of  Ohio  and  the 
United  States.  In  1802,  Congress  proposed  to  the  convention 
which  formed  the  constitution  of  Ohio,  that  they  would  grant  to 
that  State  one  section  of  land  in  each  township,  for  the  use  of 
schools ;  that  they  would  also  grant  to  it  several  tracts  of  land  on 
which  there  were  salt  springs;  and  that  five  per  cent,  of  the  net 
proceeds  of  the  future  sales  of  public  lands  within  its  territory 
should  be  applied  to  the  purpose  of  making  public  roads,  "  leading 
from  the  navigable  waters  emptying  into  the  Atlantic  to  the  Ohio, 
to  the  said  State,  and  through  the  same."  The  act,  however,  dis- 
tinctly declares  that  such  roads  shall  be  laid  out  under  the  author- 
ity of  Congress,  "  with  the  consent  of  the  several  States  through 
which  the  road  shall  pass."  These  terms  were  offered  by  Con- 
gress, to  the  State  of  Ohio,  provided  she  would  exempt,  by  an 
irrevocable  ordinance,  all  the  land  which  should  be  sold  by  the 
United  States  within  her  territory,  from  every  species  of  taxation, 
for  the  space  of  five  years  after  the  day  of  sale.  This  proposition 
of  Congress  was  accepted  by  the  State  of  Ohio ;  and  it  thus  became 
a  compact,  the  terms  of  which  could  not  be  changed  without  the 
consent  of  both  the  contracting  parties.  By  the  terms  of  the 
compact,  this  five  per  cent,  of  the  nett  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the 
public  land  was  applicable  to  two  objects :  the  first,  the  construc- 
tion of  roads  leading  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  State  of  Ohio ;  and 
the  second,  the  construction  of  roads  within  that  State.  In  1803, 
Congress,  at  the  request  of  Ohio,  apportioned  this  fund  between 
these  two  objects.     Three  of  the  five  per  cent,  was  appropriated 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  385 

to  the  construction  of  roads  within  the  State;  leaving  only  two 
per  cent,  applicable  to  roads  leading  from  the  navigable  waters  of 
the  Atlantic  to  it. 

In  March,  1806,  Congress  determined  to  apply  this  two  per 
cent,  fund  to  the  object  for  which  it  was  destined,  and  passed  "  An 
act  to  regulate  the  laying  out  and  making  of  a  road  from  Cum- 
berland, in  the  State  of  Maryland,  to  the  State  of  Ohio."  Under 
the  provisions  of  this  act,  before  the  President  could  proceed  to 
cut  a  single  tree  upon  the  route  of  the  road,  it  was  made  neces- 
sary to  obtain  the  consent  of  the  States  through  which  it  passed. 
The  Federal  Government  asked  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  and 
Virginia,  for  permission  to  make  it,  and  each  of  them  granted 
this  privilege  in  the  same  manner  that  they  would  have  done  to  a 
private  individual,  or  to  a  corporation  created  by  their  own  laws. 

Congress,  at  that  day,  asserted  no  other  right  than  a  mere 
power  to  appropriate  the  money  of  their  constituents  to  the  con- 
struction of  this  road,  after  the  consent  of  these  States  should  be 
obtained.  The  idea  of  a  sovereign  power  in  this  Government  to 
make  the  road,  and  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  it,  for  the  purpose 
of  keeping  it  in  repair,  does  not,  then,  appear  to  have  ever  entered 
the  imagination  of  the  warmest  advocate  for  federal  power.  The 
federalism  of  that  day  would  have  shrunk  with  horror  from  such 
a  spectre.  There  is  a  circumstance  worthy  of  remark  in  the  act  of 
the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  which  was  passed  in  April,  1807, 
authorizing  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  open  this  road. 
It  grants  this  power  upon  condition  that  the  road  should  pass 
through  Uniontown  and  Washington,  if  practicable?  The  grant 
was  accepted  upon  this  condition,  and  the  road  was  constructed. 
Its  length  is  one  hundred  and  thirty  miles,  and  its  construction 
and  repairs  have  cost  the  United  States  one  million  seven  hundred 
and  sixty-six  thousand  one  hundred  and  sixty-six  dollars  and 
thirty-eight  cents;  whilst  the  two  per  cent,  fund  which  we  had 
bound  ourselves  to  apply  to  this  purpose,  amounted,  on  the  30th 
of  June,  1822,  the  date  of  the  last  official  statement  within  my 
knowledge,  only  to  the  sum  of  one  hundred  and  eighty-seven 
thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-six  dollars  and  thirty-one 
cents ;  less  than  one-ninth  of  the  cost  of  the  road.  This  road  has 
cost  the  United  States  more  than  thirteen  thousand  five  hundred 
dollars  per  mile.  This  extravagant  expenditure  shows,  con- 
clusively, that  it  is  much  more  politic  for  us  to  enlist  individual 
interest  in  the  cause  of  Internal  Improvement,  by  subscribing 
stock,  than  to  become  ourselves  sole  proprietors.     Any  Govern- 

25 


386  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

ment,  unless  under  extraordinary  circumstances,  will  pay  one- 
third  more  for  constructing  a  road  or  canal,  than  would  be  ex- 
pended by  individuals  in  accomplishing  the  same  object. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  the  argument.  Upon  a  review  of 
this  brief  history,  what  is  the  conclusion  at  which  we  must  arrive  ? 
That  this  road  was  made  by  the  United  States,  as  a  mere  proprie- 
tor, to  carry  into  effect  a  contract  with  the  State  of  Ohio,  and 
not  as  a  sovereign.  In  its  construction,  the  Federal  Government 
proceeded  as  any  corporation  or  private  individual  would  have 
done.  We  asked  the  States  for  permission  to  make  the  road 
through  the  territories  over  which  their  sovereign  authority  ex- 
tended. After  that  permission  had  been  obtained,  we  appropri- 
ated the  money  and  constructed  the  road.  The  State  of  Pennsyl- 
vania even  annexed  a  condition  to  her  grant,  with  which  the 
United  States  complied.  She  also  conferred  upon  the  agents  of 
the  United  States  the  power  of  taking  materials  for  the  con- 
struction and  repair  of  this  road,  without  the  consent  of  the 
owner,  making  a  just  compensation  therefor.  This  compensa- 
tion was  to  be  ascertained  under  the  laws  of  the  State,  and  not 
under  those  of  the  United  States.  The  mode  of  proceeding  to 
assess  damages  in  such  cases  against  the  United  States  was  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  it  is  against  corporations,  created  by  her  own 
laws,  for  the  purpose  of  constructing  roads. 

What,  then,  does  this  precedent  establish?  Simply,  that 
the  United  States  may  appropriate  money  for  the  construction  of 
a  road  through  the  territories  of  a  State,  with  its  consent ;  and  I 
do  not  entertain  the  least  doubt  but  that  we  possess  this  power. 
What  does  the  present  bill  propose?  To  change  the  character 
which  the  United  States  has  hitherto  sustained,  in  relation  to  this 
road,  from  that  of  a  simple  proprietor  to  a  sovereign.  To  declare 
to  the  nation,  that,  although  they  had  to  ask  the  States  of  Mary- 
land, Pennsylvania  and  Virginia,  for  permission  to  make  the 
road,  now,  after  it  is  completed,  they  will  exercise  jurisdiction 
over  it,  and  collect  tolls  upon  it,  under  the  authority  of  their  own 
laws,  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  it  in  repair.  We  will  not  ask  the 
States  to  erect  toll-gates  for  us.  We  are  determined  to  exercise 
that  power  ourselves.  The  Federal  Government  first  introduced 
itself  into  the  States  as  a  friend,  by  permission ;  it  now  wishes  to 
hold  possession  as  a  sovereign,  by  power.  This  road  was  made  in 
the  manner  that  one  independent  sovereign  would  construct  a 
road  through  the  territories  of  another.  Had  Virginia  been  a 
party  to  the  compact  with  Ohio,  instead  of  the  United  States,  she 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  387 

would  have  asked  the  permission  of  Maryland  and  Pennsylvania 
to  construct  the  Cumberland  Road  through  their  territories,  and 
it  would  have  been  granted.  But  what  would  have  been  our 
astonishment,  after  this  permission,  had  Virginia  attempted  to  as- 
sume jurisdiction  over  the  road  in  Pennsylvania,  to  erect  toll- 
gates  upon  it  under  the  authority  of  her  own  laws,  and  to  punish 
offenders  against  these  laws  in  her  own  courts.  Yet  the  two  cases 
are  nearly  parallel. 

The  right  to  demand  toll,  and  to  stop  and  punish  passengers 
for  refusing  to  pay  it,  is  emphatically  a  sovereign  right,  and  has 
ever  been  so  considered  amongst  civilized  nations.  The  power  to 
erect  toll-gates  necessarily  implies,  ist,  The  stoppage  of  the  pass- 
enger until  he  shall  pay  the  toll ;  2d,  His  trial  and  punishment,  if 
he  should,  either  by  force  or  by  fraud,  evade,  or  attempt  to 
evade,  its  payment;  3d,  A  discretionary  power  as  to  the 
amount  of  toll;  4th,  The  trial  and  punishment  of  persons 
who  may  wilfully  injure  the  road,  or  violate  the  police  established 
upon  it.  These  powers  are  necessarily  implied.  Without  the 
exercise  of  them,  you  could  not  proceed  with  safety  to  collect  the 
toll  for  a  single  day.  Other  powers  will  soon  be  exercised.  If 
you  compel  passengers  to  pay  toll,  the  power  of  protecting  them 
whilst  travelling  along  your  road  is  almost  a  necessary  incident. 
The  sovereign,  who  receives  the  toll,  ought  naturally  to  possess 
the  power  of  protecting  him  who  pays  it.  To  vest  the  power  of 
demanding  toll  in  one  sovereign,  and  the  protection  of  the  travel- 
ler's person  in  another,  would  be  almost  an  absurdity.  The  Fed- 
eral Government  would  probably,  ere  long,  exercise  the  power  of 
trying  and  punishing  murders  and  robberies,  and  all  other  of- 
fences committed  upon  the  road.  To  what  jurisdiction  would  the 
trial  and  punishment  of  these  offences  necessarily  belong?  To 
the  courts  of  the  United  States,  and  to  them  alone.  In  Ohio,  in 
New  York,  in  Virginia,  and  in  Maryland,  it  has  been  determined 
that  State  courts,  even  if  Congress  should  confer  it,  have  no 
jurisdiction  over  any  penal  action,  or  criminal  offence,  against  the 
laws  of  the  United  States.  Even  if  these  decisions  were  incor- 
rect, still  it  has  never  been  seriously  contended  that  State  courts 
were  bound  to  take  jurisdiction  in  such  cases.  It  must  be  ad- 
mitted, by  all,  that  Congress  have  not  the  power  to  compel  an 
execution  of  their  criminal  or  penal  laws  by  the  courts  of  the 
States.  This  is  sufficient  for  my  argument.  Even  if  the  power 
existed,  in  State  courts,  they  never  ought,  unless  upon  extra- 
ordinary occasions,   to  try  and  to  punish   offences  committed 


388  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

against  the  United  States.  The  peace  and  the  harmony  of  the 
people  of  this  country  require  that  the  powers  of  the  two  govern- 
ments should  never  be  blended.  The  dividing  line  between  their 
separate  jurisdictions  should  be  clearly  marked;  otherwise  dan- 
gerous collisions  between  them  must  be  the  inevitable  conse- 
quence. In  two  of  the  States  through  which  this  road  passes,  it 
has  already  been  determined  that  their  courts  cannot  take  juris- 
diction over  offences  committed  against  the  laws  of  Congress. 
What,  then,  is  the  inevitable  consequence?  All  the  penal  enact- 
ments of  this  bill,  or  of  the  future  bills  which  it  will  become 
necessary  to  pass  to  supply  its  defects,  must  be  carried  into  execu- 
tion by  the  Federal  courts.  Any  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
charged  with  the  most  trifling  offence  against  the  police  of  this 
road,  must  be  dragged  for  trial  to  the  Federal  court  of  that  State 
within  whose  jurisdiction  it  is  alleged  to  have  been  committed. 
If  committed  in  Maryland,  the  trial  must  take  place  in  Baltimore ; 
if  in  Pennsylvania,  at  Clarksburg. 

The  distance  of  one  hundred  or  two  hundred  miles,  which 
he  would  be  compelled  to  travel  to  take  his  trial,  and  the  expenses 
which  he  must  necessarily  incur,  would,  in  themselves,  be  a  severe 
punishment  for  a  more  aggravated  offence.  Besides,  the  people 
of  the  neighborhood  would  be  harassed  in  attending  as  witnesses 
at  such  a  great  distance  from  their  places  of  abode.  These,  and 
many  other  inconveniences,  which  I  shall  not  enumerate,  would 
soon  compel  Congress  to  authorize  the  appointment  of  justices 
of  the  peace,  or  some  other  inferior  tribunals,  along  the  whole 
extent  of  the  Cumberland  Road. 

Can  any  man  lay  his  hand  upon  his  heart  and  say  that,  in 
his  conscience,  he  believes  the  Federal  Constitution  ever  intended 
to  bestow  such  powers  on  Congress?  The  great  divisions  of 
power,  distinctly  marked  in  that  instrument,  are  external  and 
internal.  The  first  are  conferred  upon  the  General  Government 
— the  last,  with  but  few  exceptions,  and  those  distinctly  defined, 
remain  in  possession  of  the  States.  It  never — never  was  intended 
that  the  vast  and  mighty  machinery  of  this  Government  should 
be  introduced  into  the  domestic,  the  local,  the  interior  concerns  of 
the  States,  or  that  it  should  spend  its  power  in  collecting  toll  at 
a  turnpike  gate.  I  have  not  been  presenting  possible  cases  to  the 
committee.  I  have  confined  myself  to  what  must  be  the  neces- 
sary effects  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  now  before  us.  By  what 
authority  is  such  a  tremendous  power  claimed?  That  it  is  not 
expressly  given  by  the  Constitution,  is  certain.     If  it  exists  at  all, 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  389 

it  must,  therefore,  be  incidental  to  some  express  power ;  and  in  the 
language  of  the  Constitution,  "  be  necessary  and  proper  for  carry- 
ing that  power  into  execution."  From  the  very  nature  of  inci- 
dental power,  it  cannot  transcend  the  specific  power  which  calls  it 
into  existence.  The  stream  cannot  flow  higher  than  its  fountain. 
This  principle  applies,  with  peculiar  force,  to  the  construction  of 
the  constitution.  For  the  purpose  of  carrying  into  effect  any  of 
its  specific  powers,  it  would  be  absurd  to  contend  that  you  might 
exercise  another  power,  greater  and  more  dangerous  than  that 
expressly  given.  The  means  must  be  subordinate  to  the  end. 
Were  any  other  construction  to  prevail,  this  Government  would 
no  longer  be  one  of  limited  powers. 

The  present  case  affords  a  striking  and  forcible  illustration 
of  this  principle.  Let  it  be  granted  that  you  have  a  right,  as 
proprietor,  by  the  permission  of  the  States,  to  make  a  road 
through  their  territories,  can  it  ever  follow,  as  an  incident  to 
this  mere  power  of  appropriating  the  public  money,  that  you  may 
exercise  jurisdiction  over  this  very  road,  as  a  sovereign?  If  you 
could,  the  incident  is  as  much  greater  than  the  principal,  as  sov- 
ereign is  superior  to  individual  power.  It  does  follow  that  you 
can  keep  the  road  in  repair,  by  appropriations,  in  the  same  manner 
that  you  have  made  it ;  but  this  is  the  utmost  limit  of  your  power. 
What,  sir !  Exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  road,  for  its  preserva- 
tion, and  for  the  punishment  of  all  offenders  who  travel  upon  it, 
and  that  as  an  incident  to  the  mere  power  of  expending  your 
money  upon  its  construction !     The  idea  is  absurd. 

Under  the  power  given  to  Congress  "  to  establish  post  orifices 
and  post  roads,"  the  Federal  Government  possess  the  undoubted 
right  of  converting  any  road  already  constructed,  within  any 
State  of  this  Union,  into  a  post  road.  Let  it  also  be  granted, 
for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  they  possess  the  power,  inde- 
pendently of  the  will  of  the  States,  to  construct  as  many  post 
roads  throughout  the  Union  as  they  think  proper,  and  to  keep 
them  in  repair;  does  it  follow  that  they  can  establish  toll  gates 
upon  such  roads?  Certainly  not.  What  is  the  nature  of  the 
power  conferred  upon  Congress  ?  It  is  a  mere  right  to  carry  and 
to  protect  the  mail.  It  is  confined  to  a  single  purpose — to  the 
transportation  of  the  mail,  and  the  punishment  of  offences  which 
violate  that  right.  This  is  the  sole  object  of  the  power — the  sole 
purpose  for  which  it  was  called  into  existence.  Over  some  post 
roads,  the  mail  is  carried  once  per  day ;  and  over  others  once  per 
week.     With  what  justice  can  it  be  contended  that  this  right  of 


390  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

passage  for  a  single  purpose — this  occasional  use  of  the  roads 
within  the  different  States  for  post  roads — vests  in  Congress  the 
power  of  closing  up  these  roads  against  all  the  citizens  of  those 
States,  at  all  times,  until  they  have  paid  such  a  toll  as  we  may 
think  proper  to  impose.  Let  me  present  the  naked  argument  of 
gentlemen  before  their  own  eyes.  Congress  have  the  right,  un- 
der the  constitution,  "  to  establish  post  offices  and  post  roads." 
As  an  incident  they  possess  the  power  of  constructing  post  roads. 
As  another  incident  to  this  right  of  passage  for  a  single  purpose 
they  possess  the  power  to  assume  jurisdiction  over  all  post  roads 
in  the  different  States,  and  prevent  any  person  from  passing  over 
them,  unless  upon  such  terms  as  they  may  prescribe.  This  would, 
indeed,  be  construction  construed.  I  would  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  [Mr.  Mercer]  to  furnish  the  Committee  with  an 
answer  to  this  argument.  If  I  were  to  grant  to  that  gentleman 
a  right  of  passage,  for  a  particular  purpose  only,  over  a  road 
which  belonged  to  me,  what  would  be  my  surprise  and  my  in- 
dignation, were  he  to  shut  it  up,  by  the  erection  of  toll  gates,  and 
prohibit  me  from  passing  unless  I  paid  him  toll. 

Should  Congress  act  upon  the  precedent  which  the  passage 
of  this  bill  would  establish,  it  is  impossible  to  foresee  the  dangers 
which  must  follow,  to  the  States  and  to  the  people  of  this  country. 
Upon  this  branch  of  the  question,  permit  me  to  quote  the  lan- 
guage of  Mr.  Monroe,  in  his  celebrated  message  of  May,  1822, 
denying  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  erect  toll  gates 
on  the  Cumberland  road :  "  If,  said  he,  the  United  States  pos- 
sessed the  power  contended  for  under  this  grant,  might  they  not, 
in  adopting  the  roads  of  the  individual  States  for  the  carriage  of 
the  mail,  as  has  been  done,  assume  jurisdiction  over  them,  and 
preclude  a  right  to  interfere  with,  or  alter  them?  Might  they 
not  establish  turnpikes,  and  exercise  all  the  other  acts  of  sov- 
ereignty above  stated,  over  such  roads,  necessary  to  protect  them 
from  injury,  and  defray  the  expense  of  repairing  them  ?  Surely, 
if  the  right  exists,  these  consequences  necessarily  followed,  as 
soon  as  the  road  was  established.  The  absurdity  of  such  a  pre- 
tension must  be  apparent  to  all  who  examine  it.  In  this  way,  a 
large  portion  of  the  territory  of  every  State  might  be  taken  from 
it :  for  there  is  scarcely  a  road  in  any  State  which  will  not  be  used 
for  the  transportation  of  the  mail.  A  new  field  for  legislation 
and  internal  government  would  thus  be  opened.,,  Arguments  of 
the  same  nature  would  apply  with  equal,  if  not  greater  force,  to 
those  roads  which  might  be  used  by  the  United  States  for  the 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  391 

transportation  of  military  stores,  or  as  the  medium  of  commerce 
between  the  different  States.  I  shall  not  now  enlarge  upon  this 
branch  of  the  subject,  believing  it,  as  I  do,  to  be  wholly  unneces- 
sary. 

There  is  another  view  of  this  subject,  which  I  deem  to  be 
conclusive.  The  constitution  of  the  United  States  provides  that 
"  Congress  shall  have  power  to  exercise  exclusive  legislation,  in 
all  cases  whatsoever,  over  such  district  (not  exceeding  ten  miles 
square)  as  may,  by.  cession  of  particular  States,  and  the  accept- 
ance of  Congress,  become  the  seat  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States,  and  to  exercise  the  like  authority  over  all  places 
purchased  by  the  consent  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  in  which 
the  same  shall  be,  for  the  erection  of  forts,  magazines,  arsenals, 
dock-yards,  and  other  needful  buildings."  This  is  the  only 
clause  in  the  constitution  which  authorizes  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment to  acquire  jurisdiction  over  any  portion  of  the  territory  of 
the  States;  and  this  power  is  expressly  confined  to  such  forts, 
magazines,  arsenals,  dock-yards,  and  other  needful  buildings,  as 
the  States  may  consider  necessary  for  the  defence  of  the  country. 
You  will  thus,  sir,  perceive,  with  what  jealousy  our  ancestors 
conferred  jurisdiction  upon  this  Government — even  over  such 
places  as  were  absolutely  necessary  for  the  exercise  of  the  power 
of  war.  This  power — which  is  the  power  of  self-defence — of 
self-preservation — the  power  given  to  this  Government  of  wield- 
ing the  whole  physical  force  of  the  country,  for  the  preservation 
of  its  existence  and  its  liberties — does  not  confer  any  implied 
jurisdiction  over  the  smallest  portion  of  territory.  An  express 
authority  is  given  to  acquire  jurisdiction,  for  military  and  for 
naval  purposes,  and  for  them  alone,  with  the  consent  of  the  States. 
Unless  that  consent  has  been  first  obtained,  the  vast  power  of 
war  confers  no  incidental  jurisdiction,  even  over  the  cannon  in 
your  national  fortifications.  How,  then,  can  it  be  contended,  with 
the  least  hope  of  success,  that  the  same  constitution,  which  thus 
expressly  limits  our  power  of  acquiring  jurisdiction,  to  particular 
spots,  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  national  defence,  should,  by 
implication,  as  an  incident  to  the  power  to  establish  post  offices 
and  post  roads,  authorize  us  to  assume  jurisdiction  over  a  road 
one  hundred  and  thirty  miles  in  length,  and  over  all  the  other 
post  roads  in  the  country.  If  this  construction  be  correct,  all  the 
limitations  upon  Federal  power,  contained  in  the  constitution,  are 
idle  and  vain.  There  is  no  power  which  this  Government  shall 
ever  wish  to  usurp,  which  cannot,  by  ingenuity,  be  found  lurking 


392  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

in  some  of  the  express  powers  granted  by  the  constitution.  In 
my  humble  judgment,  the  argument  in  favor  of  the  constructive 
power  to  pass  the  sedition  law  is  much  more  plausible  than  any 
which  can  be  urged  by  the  advocates  of  this  bill,  in  favor  of  its 
passage.  I  beg  gentlemen  to  reflect,  before  they  vote  in  its 
favor. 

I  thank  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Vance]  for  having 
reminded  me  of  the  resolution  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  Penn- 
sylvania, at  their  last  session,  which  authorizes  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment to  erect  toll-gates  upon  this  road,  within  that  Common- 
wealth ;  to  "  enforce  the  collection  of  tolls,  and,  generally,  to  do 
and  perform  any  and  every  other  act  and  thing  which  may  be 
deemed  necessary,  to  ensure  the  permanent  repair  and  preserva- 
tion of  the  said  road." 

I  feel  the  most  unfeigned  respect  for  the  Legislature  of  my 
native  State.  Their  deliberate  opinion,  upon  any  subject,  will 
always  have  a  powerful  influence  over  my  judgment.  It  is  fairly 
entitled  to  as  much  consideration  as  the  opinion  of  this  or  any 
other  legislative  body  in  the  Union.  This  resolution,  however, 
was  adopted,  as  I  have  been  informed,  without  much  deliberation, 
and  without  debate.  It  owes  its  passage  to  the  anxious  desire 
which  that  body  feel  to  preserve  the  Cumberland  road  from  ruin. 
The  constitutional  question  was  not  brought  into  discussion.  Had 
it  been  fairly  submitted  to  that  Republican  Legislature,  I  most 
solemnly  believe  they  would  have  been  the  last  in  this  Union  to 
sanction  the  assumption,  by  this  Government,  of  a  jurisdiction 
so  ultra- federal  in  its  nature,  and  so  well  calculated  to  destroy  the 
rights  of  the  States. 

But  this  resolution  can  have  no  influence  upon  the  present 
discussion.  The  people  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  never  con- 
ferred upon  their  Legislature  the  power  to  cede  jurisdiction  over 
any  portion  of  their  territory  to  the  United  States,  or  to  any 
other  sovereign.  If  the  Legislatures  of  the  different  States 
could  exercise  such  a  power,  the  road  to  consolidation  would  be 
direct.  If  they  can  cede  jurisdiction  to  this  Government  over 
any  portion  of  their  territories,  they  can  cede  the  whole,  and  thus 
altogether  destroy  the  Federal  system. 

Even  if  the  States  possessed  the  power  to  cede,  the  United 
States  have  no  power  to  accept  such  cessions.  Their  authority 
to  accept  cessions  of  jurisdiction  is  confined  to  places  "  for  the 
erection  of  forts,  magazines,  arsenals,  dock-yards,  and  other 
needful  buildings."     Mr.  Monroe,  in  the  message  to  which  I  have 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  393 

already  referred,  declares  his  opinion,  "  that  Congress  do  not 
possess  this  power ;  that  the  States,  individually,  cannot  grant  it : 
for,  although  they  may  assent  to  the  appropriation  of  money, 
within  their  limits,  for  such  purposes,  they  can  grant  no  power 
of  jurisdiction,  or  sovereignty,  by  special  compacts  with  the 
United  States." 

I  think  it  is  thus  rendered  abundantly  clear,  that,  if  Con- 
gress do  not  possess  the  power,  under  the  Federal  constitution, 
to  pass  this  bill,  the  States  through  which  the  road  passes  cannot 
confer  it  upon  them.  I  feel  convinced  that  even  the  gentleman 
who  reported  this  bill  [Mr.  Mercer]  will  not  contend  that  the 
resolution  of  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania  could  bestow  any 
jurisdiction  upon  this  Government.  I  am  justified  in  this  infer- 
ence, because  that  resolution  is,  in  its  nature,  conditional,  and 
requires  that  the  amount  of  tolls  collected  in  Pennsylvania  shall 
be  applied,  exclusively,  to  the  repair  of  the  road  within  that  State ; 
and  the  present  bill  contains  no  provision  to  carry  this  condition 
into  effect.  The  gentleman  cannot,  therefore,  derive  his  author- 
ity to  pass  this  bill  from  a  grant,  the  provisions  of  which  he  has 
disregarded. 

This  question  has  already  been  settled,  so  far  as  a  solemn 
legislative  precedent  can  settle  any  question.  During  the  session 
of  1 82 1-2,  a  bill,  similar  in  its  provisions  to  the  one  now  before 
the  Committee,  passed  both  Houses  of  Congress.  The  vote,  on 
its  passage  in  this  House,  was  eighty-seven  in  the  affirmative,  and 
sixty-eight  in  the  negative.  Mr.  Monroe,  then  President  of  the 
United  States,  returned  this  bill  to  the  House  of  Representatives, 
with  his  objections.  So  powerful,  and  so  convincing,  were  his 
arguments,  that,  upon  its  re-consideration,  but  sixty-eight  mem- 
bers voted  in  the  affirmative,  whilst  seventy-two  voted  in  the 
negative.  Thus,  sir,  you  perceive,  that  this  House  have  already 
solemnly  declared,  in  accordance  with  the  deliberate  opinion  of 
the  late  President  of  the  United  States,  that  Congress  do  not 
possess  the  power  to  erect  toll-gates  upon  the  Cumberland  road. 
That  distinguished  individual  was  the  last  of  the  race  of  Revolu- 
tionary Presidents,  and,  from  the  soundness  of  his  judgment,  and 
the  elevated  stations  which  he  has  occupied,  his  opinion  is  entitled 
to  the  utmost  respect.  He  was  an  actor  in  many  of  the  political 
scenes  of  that  day  when  the  constitution  was  framed,  and  when 
it  went  into  operation,  under  the  auspices  of  Washington — "  all 
which  he  saw,  and  part  of  which  he  was."  He  is,  therefore,  one 
of  the  few  surviving  statesmen,  who,   from  actual  knowledge, 


394  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

can  inform  the  present  generation  what  were  the  opinions  of  the 
past.  The  solemnity  and  the  ability  with  which  he  has  resisted 
the  exercise  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  pass  this  bill  prove,  con- 
clusively, the  great  importance  which  he  attached  to  the  subject. 
During  that  session,  which  was  the  first  I  had  the  honor  of 
a  seat  in  this  House,  I  voted  for  the  passage  of  that  bill.  I  had 
not  reflected  upon  the  constitutional  question,  and  I  was  an  advo- 
cate of  the  policy  of  keeping  the  road  in  repair  by  collecting  tolls 
from  those  who  travelled  upon  it.  After  I  read  the  constitutional 
objections  of  Mr.  Monroe,  my  opinion  was  changed,  and  I  have 
ever  since  been  endeavoring,  upon  all  proper  occasions,  to  atone 
for  my  vote,  by  advocating  a  cession  of  the  road  to  the  respective 
States  through  which  it  passes,  that  they  may  erect  toll-gates  upon 
it  and  keep  it  in  repair.  There  was  a  time  in  the  history  of 
this  country — I  refer  to  the  days  of  the  first  President  of  the 
United  States — when  this  Government  was  feeble,  and  when,  in 
addition  to  its  own  powers,  the  weight  of  his  personal  character 
was  necessary  fairly  to  put  it  in  motion.  Jealousy  of  Federal 
power  was  then  the  order  of  the  day.  The  gulf  of  consolidation 
then  yawned  before  the  imagination  of  many  of  our  wisest  and 
best  patriots,  ready  to  swallow  up  the  rights  of  the  States  and 
the  liberties  of  the  people.  In  those  days,  this  vast  machine  had 
scarcely  got  into  regular  motion.  Its  power  and  its  patronage 
were  then  in  their  infancy,  and  there  was,  perhaps,  more  danger 
that  the  jealousy  of  the  States  should  destroy  the  efficiency  of 
the  Federal  Government,  than  that  it  should  crush  their  power. 
Times  have  changed.  The  days  of  its  feebleness  and  of  childhood 
have  passed  away.  It  is  now  a  giant — a  Briareus — stretching 
forth  its  hundred  arms,  dispensing  its  patronage,  and  increasing 
its  power  over  every  portion  of  the  Union.  What  patronage  and 
what  power  have  the  States  to  oppose  to  this  increasing  influence  ? 
Glance  your  eye  over  the  extent  of  the  Union;  compare  State 
offices  with  those  of  the  United  States;  and  whether  avarice  or 
ambition  be  consulted,  those  which  belong  to  the  General  Govern- 
ment are  greatly  to  be  preferred  to  the  offices  which  the  States 
can  bestow.  Jealousy  of  Federal  power — not  of  a  narrow  and 
mean  character,  but  a  watchful  and  uncompromising  jealousy — 
is  now  the  dictate  of  the  soundest  patriotism.  The  General  Gov- 
ernment possesses  the  exclusive  right  to  impose  duties  upon  im- 
ports— by  far  the  most  productive  and  the  most  popular  source  of 
revenue.  United  and  powerful  efforts  are  now  making  to  destroy 
the  revenue  which  the  States  derive  from  sales  at  auction.    This 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  395 

Government  is  now  asked  to  interpose  its  power  between  the 
buyer  and  seller,  and  put  down  public  sales  of  merchandise  within 
the  different  States — a  subject  heretofore  believed  to  be  within 
the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  State  sovereignties.  Whilst  the 
Federal  Government  has  been  advancing  with  rapid  strides,  the 
people  of  the  States  have  seldom  been  awakened  to  a  sense  of 
their  danger.  In  the  late  political  struggle,  they  were  aroused, 
and  they  nobly  maintained  their  own  rights.  This,  I  trust,  will 
always  be  the  case  hereafter.  Thank  Heaven!  whilst  the  people 
continue  true  to  themselves,  the  constitution  contains  within 
itself  those  principles  which  must  ever  preserve  it.  From  its 
very  nature — from  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  constructive 
powers  which  may  be  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  those  which 
are  enumerated  into  effect — it  must  ever  call  into  existence  two 
parties,  the  one  jealous  of  Federal,  the  other  of  State  power; 
the  one  anxious  to  extend  Federal  influence,  the  other  wedded 
to  State  rights;  the  one  desirous  to  limit,  the  other  to  extend, 
the  power  and  the  patronage  of  the  General  Government.  In 
the  intermediate  space  there  will  be  much  debatable  ground; 
but  a  general  outline  will  still  remain  sufficiently  distinct  to 
mark  the  division  between  the  political  parties  which  have  di- 
vided, and  which  will  probably  continue  to  divide,  the  people  of 
this  country.  Jealousy  of  Federal  power  had  long  been  slum- 
bering. The  voice  of  Virginia  sounding  the  alarm  has  at  length 
awakened  several  of  her  sister  States ;  and,  although  they  believe 
her  to  be  too  strict  in  her  construction  of  the  Constitution  and 
her  doctrines  concerning  State  rights,  yet,  they  are  now  willing 
to  do  justice  to  the  steadiness  and  patriotism  of  her  political 
character.  She  has  kept  alive  a  wholesome  jealousy  of  Federal 
power.  If,  then,  there  be  a  party  in  this  country  friendly  to 
the  rights  of  the  States  and  of  the  people,  I  call  upon  them  to 
oppose  the  passage  of  this  bill.  Should  it  become  a  law,  it  will 
establish  a  precedent  under  the  authority  of  which  the  sovereign 
power  of  this  Government  can  be  brought  home  into  the  domestic 
concerns  of  every  State  in  the  Union.  We  may  then  take  under 
our  own  jurisdiction  every  road  over  which  the  mail  is  carried; 
every  road  over  which  our  soldiers  and  warlike  munitions  may 
pass;  every  road  used  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  commerce 
between  the  several  States.  Once  establish  this  strained  con- 
struction of  the  Federal  Constitution,  and  I  would  ask  gentle- 
men to  point  out  the  limit  where  this  splendid  government  shall 


396  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

be  compelled  to  stay  its  chariot  wheels.  Might  it  not  then  drive 
on  to  consolidation,  under  the  sanction  of  the  Constitution? 

Is  there  any  necessity  for  venturing  upon  this  dangerous  and 
doubtful  measure?  I  appeal  to  those  gentlemen  who  suppose 
the  power  to  be  clear,  what  motive  they  can  have  for  forcing  this 
measure  upon  us,  who  are  of  a  different  opinion?  Can  it  make 
any  difference  to  them  whether  those  toll-gates  shall  be  erected 
under  a  law  of  the  United  States,  or  under  State  authority? 
Cannot  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania  enact  this  bill  into  a  law 
as  well  as  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  ?  Nobody  will  doubt 
their  right.  I  trust  no  gentleman  upon  this  floor  will  question 
the  fidelity  of  that  State  in  complying  with  all  her  engagements. 
She  has  ever  been  true  to  every  trust.  If  she  should  accept  of  the 
cession,  as  I  have  no  doubt  she  would,  I  will  pledge  myself  that 
you  shall  never  again  hear  of  the  road,  unless  it  be  that  she  has 
kept  it  in  good  repair,  and  that  under  her  care  it  has  answered 
every  purpose  for  which  it  was  intended. 

I  know  that  some  popular  feeling  has  been  excited  against 
myself  in  that  portion  of  Pennsylvania  through  which  the  road 
passes.  I  have  been  represented  as  one  of  its  greatest  enemies. 
I  now  take  occasion  thus  publicly  to  deny  this  allegation.  It  is 
true  that  I  cannot  vote  in  favor  of  the  passage  of  this  bill,  and 
thus,  in  my  judgment,  violate  the  oath  which  I  have  taken  to  sup- 
port the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  No  man  can  expect 
this  from  me.  But  it  is  equally  true  that  I  have  heretofore  sup- 
ported appropriations  for  the  repair  of  this  road ;  and  should  my 
amendment  prevail,  I  shall  vote  in  favor  of  the  appropriation  of 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars  for  that  purpose  which  is  contained 
in  this  bill. 


REMARKS,  JANUARY   20,  1829, 

ON    THE    PROPOSED    TERRITORY    OF    HURON.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  disavowed  every  thing  like  hostility  to  the  bill. 
He  had  desired  its  postponement  only  for  the  obtainment  of 
farther  information ;  having  received  this,  and  being  now  satisfied 
as  to  the  extent  and  the  necessities  of  the  population  to  be  pro- 
vided for,  he  was  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  bill.  By  the  original 
contract  with  Virginia,  the  United  States  were  bound  to  erect 
the  territory  ceded  by  her  into  new  States,  so  soon  as  they  should 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  2  Sess.  1828-1829,  V.  245. 


1829]  PRESIDENTIAL  TERMS  397 

acquire  the  requisite  population;  but,  before  they  could  become 
States,  they  must  be  first  erected  into  territories.  On  this  point 
the  Government  had  no  discretion ;  it  was  bound  by  contract ;  and 
if  any  one  of  the  Territories  was  so  situated  as  to  require  it,  such 
government  might  be  erected  a  year  or  two  previous  to  the  period 
when  the  population  would  entitle  them  to  demand  it.  As  to 
the  objections  of  his  friend  and  colleague,  (on  whom  he  passed  a 
handsome  compliment)  he  did  not  consider  it  of  very  great  force. 
The  extent  of  the  country  west  of  Michigan  was  so  great,  and  the 
limits  of  the  Michigan  Territory  were  so  obviously  defined  by 
nature  herself,  that  its  settlement  would  in  no  wise  be  retarded 
by  the  measure  proposed. 


REMARKS,  FEBRUARY   6,  1829, 

ON  A   PROPOSED  AMENDMENT  TO    THE  CONSTITUTION  TO  RENDER 
THE  PRESIDENT  INELIGIBLE  FOR  A  SECOND  TERM.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  he  should  vote  in  favor  of  the  postpone- 
ment of  this  resolution  until  the  3d  of  March.  He  did  not  think 
that  the  great  constitutional  question  which  it  presented  ought  to 
be  decided,  without  more  time  and  more  reflection  than  it  would 
be  possible  to  bestow  upon  it  at  this  late  period  of  the  session.  We 
had  heard  the  able  and  ingenious  argument  of  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia,  [Mr.  Smyth]  in  favor  of  the  proposition,  whilst  no 
argument  had  been  urged  upon  the  other  side  of  the  question. 
Mr.  B.  said  that  a  more  important  question  could  not  be  pre- 
sented in  a  republic,  than  a  proposition  to  change  the  constitution 
in  regard  to  the  election  of  the  Supreme  Executive  Magistrate. 
"  It  is  better  to  bear  the  ills  we  have,  than  fly  to  others  that  we 
know  not  of,"  unless  the  existing  evils  are  great,  and  we  have  a 
moral  certainty  that  the  change  will  not  be  productive  of  still 
greater  evils.  The  constitution  has  been  once  changed  since  its 
adoption,  and  it  is  now  generally  admitted,  by  reflecting  men, 
that  the  alteration  was  for  the  worse,  and  not  for  the  better. 
This  change  grew  out  of  the  excitement  of  the  moment.  It  pro- 
vided against  the  existence  of  an  evil  which,  probably,  would  not 
again  have  occurred  for  a  long  period  of  time;  but,  in  doing  so, 
it  has  rendered  it  almost  certain  that  the  election  of  a  President 
shall  often  devolve  upon  the  House  of  Representatives.  Had  the 
constitution  remained  in  its  original  form ;  had  each  elector  con- 
tinued to  vote  for  two  persons,  instead  of  one ;  it  could  rarely,  if 


1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  2  Sess.  1828-1829,  V.  320. 


398  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

ever,  have  occurred,  that  some  one  candidate  would  not  have 
received  a  majority  of  all  the  electoral  votes.  By  this  change,  we 
have  thus  entailed  a  great  evil  upon  the  country. 

The  example  of  Washington,  which  has  been  followed  by 
Jefferson,  Madison,  and  Monroe,  has  forever  determined  that 
no  President  shall  be  more  than  once  re-elected.  This  principle  is 
now  become  as  sacred  as  if  it  were  written  in  the  constitution.  I 
would  incline  to  leave  to  the  people  of  the  United  States,  without 
incorporating  it  in  the  constitution,  to  decide  whether  a  Presi- 
dent should  serve  longer  than  one  term.  The  day  may  come, 
when  dangers  shall  lower  over  us,  and  when  we  may  have  a 
President  at  the  helm  of  State  who  possesses  the  confidence  of  the 
country,  and  is  better  able  to  weather  the  storm  than  any  other 
pilot;  shall  we,  then,  under  such  circumstances,  deprive  the  people 
of  the  United  States  of  the  power  of  obtaining  his  services  for  a 
second  term?  Shall  we  pass  a  decree,  as  fixed  as  fate,  to  bind 
the  American  people,  and  prevent  them  from  ever  re-electing  such 
a  man?     I  am  not  afraid  to  trust  them  with  this  power. 

There  is  another  reason  why  the  House  should  not  be  called 
upon  to  decide  this  question  hastily.  It  is  a  great  evil  to  keep  the 
public  mind  continually  excited,  as  it  would  be,  by  the  election  of 
a  new  President  at  the  end  of  each  term  of  four  years.  Under 
the  existing  system,  it  is  probable  that,  as  a  general  rule,  a  Presi- 
dent, elected  by  the  people,  will  once  be  re-elected,  unless  he  shall 
by  his  conduct  have  deprived  himself  of  public  confidence.  This 
will,  in  many  instances,  prevent  the  recurrence  of  a  political  storm 
more  than  once  in  eight  years.  These  are  some  of  the  sugges- 
tions which  induce  me  to  vote  for  the  postponement  of  this  reso- 
lution to  a  day  that  will  render  it  impossible  for  us  to  act  upon  it 
during  the  present  session  of  Congress.  We  ought  to  have 
ample  time  to  consider  this  subject  before  we  act. 


SPEECH,  FEBRUARY  12,  1829, 

ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  addressed  the  Chair  as  follows :  I  know  that 
the  committee  are  anxious  to  dispose  of  the  question  now  under 
discussion  as  speedily  as  possible.  It  is  natural  they  should 
feel  this  desire,  because  it  has  already  occupied  too  much  of 


Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  2  Sess.   1828-1829,   V.,  appended  pages 
(after  p.  391),  1-7. 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  399 

their  time.  I  shall  therefore  confine  myself  to  as  brief  a  reply 
as  possible.  I  am  anxious  that  the  question  should  this  day 
be  decided  in  Committee  of  the  Whole.  If  there  be  other  gentle- 
men desirous  of  taking  part  in  the  debate,  I  would  suggest  to 
them  the  propriety  of  deferring  their  remarks  until  the  bill  shall 
have  come  into  the  House. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia,  [Mr.  Mercer,]  instead  of 
complaining,  ought  to  congratulate  himself  on  the  course  which 
this  debate  has  taken.  In  opening  it,  I  confined  myself  strictly  to 
the  questions  of  the  power  and  the  policy  of  erecting  toll-gates  on 
the  Cumberland  road,  under  the  authority  of  this  Government.  But 
the  subject,  against  my  wishes,  has  since  expanded,  and  the  debate 
has  extended  over  the  whole  doctrine  of  internal  improvements. 
A  wide  field  has  thus  been  opened  to  the  gentleman,  from  which 
I  should  have  excluded  him;  and  he  has  made  a  brilliant  and 
sometimes  an  argumentative  speech  on  the  general  question  of 
our  power  to  construct  roads  and  canals.  I  shall  not  follow  him 
in  this  discursive  range,  but  shall  confine  myself  to  the  two 
questions  which  I  raised  at  the  commencement  of  the  debate, 
and  shall  reply  only  to  such  of  his  arguments  as  had  a  bearing 
upon  these  questions.  This  will  be  an  easy  task,  as  the  gentle- 
man gave  them  but  passing  notices. 

The  extension  of  this  debate  beyond  its  due  limits  has  given 
the  gentleman  another  advantage.  It  has  enabled  him  to  sound 
the  alarm,  and  to  operate  upon  the  fears  of  the  friends  of  internal 
improvements.  He  has  called  upon  them  to  stand  firm  and  united 
against  the  amendment,  and  has  endeavored  to  create  the  belief 
that  its  adoption  would  prostrate  the  whole  system.  He  has  de- 
nounced my  open  defection  from  the  cause,  and  the  secret  deser- 
tion of  two  other  friends,  [Mr.  Stewart  and  Mr.  Smith,]  merely 
because  they  declared  that  they  would  still  vote  for  the  bill,  even 
if  the  amendment  should  prevail.  Is  this  fair?  Can  the  gen- 
tleman be  serious  when  he  declares  that  upon  the  vote  on  this 
amendment  hangs  the  fate  of  internal  improvements?  Will  he 
really  vote  against  this  bill,  a  bill  which  appropriates  $100,000 
for  the  repair  of  the  Cumberland  road,  should  a  majority  of  the 
committee,  upon  the  whole,  think  it  better  that  the  collection 
of  tolls  necessary  for  its  future  preservation  and  repair  should  be 
made  under  State  rather  than  under  United  States  authority? 
If  so,  instead  of  being  a  great  friend  to  internal  improvements, 
he  would  become  their  greatest  enemy. 

The  gentleman  seems  determined  that  the  whole  question 


400  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

in  relation  to  internal  improvements  shall  depend  upon  the  single 
point — our  right  to  erect  toll-gates.  The  entire  system  is  to  be 
arrested,  so  far  as  his  influence  may  extend,  unless  my  amend- 
ment shall  be  defeated.  And  why?  Can  the  gentleman  point 
to  a  single  beneficial  purpose  which  will  not  be  equally  accom- 
plished without  the  aid  of  this  power?  Can  its  abandonment 
interfere  with  your  subscriptions  of  stock,  or  your  appropriations 
of  money  to  construct  roads  and  canals?  No,  sir,  so  far  from 
it,  that  I  do  most  solemnly  believe  the  exercise  of  this  dangerous 
and  unconstitutional  power  would  roll  back  the  tide  of  public 
opinion  which  now  runs  so  strongly  in  favor  of  internal  im- 
provements, and  endangers  the  whole  system.  I  protest  against 
the  doctrine  of  the  gentleman.  I  protest  against  any  idea  going 
abroad,  that,  because  either  we  cannot  or  we  will  not  erect  toll- 
gates  upon  the  Cumberland  road,  therefore  Ave  have  abandoned 
all  power  in  relation  to  internal  improvements.  This  would  be 
placing  its  existence  upon  a  fearful  cast.  The  principles  for 
which  I  contend  will  carry  the  power  of  this  Government  to  the 
point  at  which  exclusive  State  jurisdiction  commences.  Beyond 
that  limit  it  ought  never  to  pass.  All  the  beneficial  effects  of 
this  power  would  thus  be  conferred  upon  the  people,  whilst  there 
could  be  no  danger  from  collision  between  State  and  United 
States  authority. 

If  the  power  to  erect  toll-gates  were  written  in  sunbeams  on 
the  face  of  the  constitution,  still  true  policy  would  forbid  its  exer- 
cise. If  necessary,  I  should  be  willing  to  rest  this  argument  on  the 
ground  of  policy  alone.  The  gentleman  has  warned  us,  that  the 
Committee  on  Roads  and  Canals  have  placed  this  bill  in  the  front 
of  the  battle,  so  that  if  it  passed  it  might  be  a  guide  to  their 
future  conduct.  It  must,  then,  be  their  intention  inseparably  to 
connect  with  the  construction  of  roads  and  canals  the  erection  of 
toll-gates  by  Congress  for  their  preservation  and  repairs.  Permit 
me,  then,  to  make  some  remarks  on  the  policy  of  such  a  principle, 
apart  from  the  power. 

What  is  the  authority  which  we  must  necessarily  exercise 
upon  this  road,  should  we  assume  the  jurisdiction  over  it  con- 
templated by  the  bill?  It  is  that  of  exclusive  legislation,  for 
the  purpose  of  preserving  it  from  injury,  of  repairing  it,  of  col- 
lecting the  necessary  tolls  upon  it,  and  of  punishing  all  offences 
committed  against  the  police  which  we  may  establish.  Consid- 
ered as  a  road,  or  right  of  way,  our  jurisdiction  necessarily  be- 
comes exclusive.     This  results  from  the  nature  of  things.     As  a 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  401 

road,  the  States  through  which  it  passes  must  lose  all  power  over 
it.  Distinct  sovereignties  cannot  act,  at  the  same  time  and  in 
the  same  manner,  upon  the  same  object,  more  than  two  solid 
bodies  can,  at  the  same  moment,  occupy  the  same  space. 

I  admit  the  correctness  of  the  doctrine  maintained  by  the 
gentleman  from  Virginia,  that  this  exclusive  legislation  does  not 
necessarily  extend  to  the  punishment  of  crimes  committed  on  the 
road,  which  are  not  connected  with  the  right  of  way;  much  less 
would  it  embrace  the  jurisdiction  over  contracts.  But  still, 
although  thus  limited,  there  must  remain  to  Congress  an  ex- 
clusive jurisdiction,  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  and  repairing 
it,  and  collecting  the  necessary  tolls. 

The  present  bill  is  grossly  defective  even  for  these  purposes. 
Whether  its  defects  were  the  result  of  mere  inadvertence,  or 
whether  the  committee  apprehended  danger  to  the  bill  from  insert- 
ing those  penalties  essentially  necessary  to  the  existence  and 
preservation  of  any  turnpike,  I  shall  not  pretend  to  determine.  It 
is  possible  that  it  may  have  been  deemed  expedient  to  establish  the 
principle  of  erecting  toll-gates,  by  one  bill;  and  to  reserve  the 
infliction  of  such  penalties  as  might  startle  the  fears  of  the  timid, 
for  a  supplement.     This  is  the  usual  march  of  power. 

The  gentleman  has  informed  us  that  there  are  but  three 
penalties  in  the  bill.  This  is  very  true:  and  for  any  efficient 
purpose  the  committee  might  as  well  have  followed  the  example 
of  their  predecessors,  and  reported  the  bill  without  any  penalty. 
It  is  a  curious  fact  in  the  history  of  this  matter,  that  the  first  bill 
reported  to  erect  toll-gates  on  the  Cumberland  road  provided 
no  remedy,  no  fine,  no  penalty,  in  any  case  whatever;  and  even 
in  the  present  bill  no  penalty  is  denounced  against  the  traveller 
who  refuses  to  pay  the  toll.  This  is  left  entirely  within  his  own 
discretion. 

What  are  the  three  penalties  contained  in  this  bill?  The 
first  is  against  the  omission  to  set  up  directors  on  the  road, 
cautioning  drivers  of  carriages  to  pass  on  the  left  of  each  other. 
Against  whom  is  this  penalty  denounced?  Is  it  against  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  the  superintendent  of  the  road, 
or  the  toll-gatherers  ?  On  this  subject  we  are  left  in  utter  dark- 
ness by  the  bill.  So  far  as  any  inference  can  be  drawn  from  its 
provisions,  I  am  rather  inclined  to  believe  the  President  would 
be  the  object  of  the  penalty;  and  yet  I  cannot  think  such  was 
the  intention  of  the  committee.     A  penalty,  without  designation 

26 


402  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

of  the  person  on  whom  it  is  to  be  inflicted,  is  something  new  in 
legislation. 

The  second  penalty  is  against  toll-gatherers  who  may  un- 
reasonably delay  or  hinder  the  passage  of  travellers  through  the 
gates,  or  who  shall  demand  or  receive  more  toll  than  is  due ;  the 
third,  against  persons  who  may  wilfully  injure  the  road,  or 
obstruct  its  passage.     These  are  all. 

Present  this  bill  to  any  man  who  has  ever  been  a  member 
of  the  Legislature,  either  of  Pennsylvania  or  Ohio,  where  the 
subject  is  well  understood,  and  he  will  inform  you  that  its  pro- 
visions are  wholly  inadequate  to  effect  the  purposes  for  which 
they  ought  to  have  been  intended.  I  shall  point  out  a  few  of 
its  most  glaring  defects,  which,  should  it  become  a  law,  must 
be  immediately  remedied  by  a  supplement.  My  sole  purpose  in 
pursuing  this  course  is  to  enable  the  committee  to  appreciate 
the  powers  which  they  are  actually  granting,  and  which  must 
follow  in  the  train  of  this  measure. 

And  first,  as  I  have  already  stated,  this  bill  inflicts  no  penalty 
on  any  traveller  either  for  attempting  to  pass  or  for  actually  pass- 
ing the  gates,  without  the  payment  of  the  toll :  a  most  wonderful 
omission. 

Again:  for  the  repair  of  this  road,  the  right  of  eminent 
domain  must  be  exercised.  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  all  the 
owners  of  the  soil  along  its  course  and  all  the  contractors  will 
be  reasonable  men;  and  even  if  they  were,  they  might  honestly 
differ  in  their  estimate  of  the  value  of  the  materials  necessary 
for  its  repair.  What  then  is  to  be  done?  These  materials  are 
of  such  a  ponderous  nature,  that  they  cannot,  without  a  ruinous 
expense,  be  transported  a  great  distance.  You  must  follow  the 
example  of  the  States,  and  authorize  them  to  be  taken  against 
the  consent  of  the  owner.  And  in  order  to  exercise  this  power, 
you  must  establish  a  tribunal  to  assess  their  value.  On  this 
subject  the  bill  is  altogether  silent;  and  this  very  silence  would 
be  the  greatest  encouragement  for  extortion. 

But  again:  the  traveller  who  pays  the  toll  has  his  rights 
as  well  as  the  Government  which  receives  it.  Suppose  the  road 
is  suffered  to  become  ruinous,  and  so  much  out  of  repair,  that 
it  would  be  unjust  to  demand  toll  upon  it.  What  then?  In  such 
a  case  the  States  have  established  tribunals  to  decide  this  fact, 
and  then  the  gates  are  thrown  open.  This  bill  contains  no  such 
provision. 

Again:     suppose   any   of  the   citizens   along  this  turnpike 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  403 

should  make  a  road  upon  his  own  land  around  the  turnpike  gates, 
and  thus  evade  the  payment  of  the  toll;  what  is  your  remedy 
by  this  bill?  Nothing.  You  are  left  completely  at  the  mercy 
of  all  the  owners  of  the  soil  near  each  gate,  throughout  the  whole 
extent  of  the  road.  This  defect  must  be  immediately  remedied. 
Penalties  must  be  inflicted  both  upon  the  owner  of  the  soil,  and 
the  passenger  who  shall  in  this  manner  avoid  the  turnpike  gates. 

But  I  shall  not  detain  the  committee  and  weary  myself  by 
enumerating  the  other  defects  of  the  bill.  The  truth  is,  that  the 
code  of  laws  necessary  to  preserve  such  a  road,  and  to  collect 
toll  upon  it,  must  contain  many  minute  provisions,  and  many 
penalties  for  the  commission  of  trifling  offences,  which  can  only, 
without  the  greatest  inconvenience,  be  carried  into  execution  by 
the  local  jurisdictions  of  the  States.  The  machinery  of  the 
General  Government  is  not  calculated  to  give  effect  to  such  pro- 
visions. It  was  never  intended  for  such  a  purpose.  It  would 
be  monstrous  and  intolerable  oppression  to  permit  the  gate- 
keepers along  the  road  to  take  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  to 
Baltimore,  or  Pittsburg,  or  Clarksburg,  to  be  tried  before  a 
circuit  or  district  court  for  such  an  offence  as  that  of  defacing 
a  milestone. 

But  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  insisted  that  this  neces- 
sity does  not  exist;  that  State  courts  and  State  magistrates 
ought  to  take  cognizance  of  such  offences ;  and  he  has  even  gone 
so  far  as  to  express  his  astonishment  that  State  judges  have 
dared  to  decide  that  they  would  not  enforce  the  criminal  and 
penal  laws  of  the  United  States.  On  this  question,  however, 
we  have,  in  opposition  to  his  opinion,  the  authority  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  Buckner;]  and,  without  disparage- 
ment, I  may  say  he  is  a  higher  authority  on  a  point  of  law  than 
the  gentleman  from  Virginia. 

But  this  question  does  not  now  remain  open :  it  has  already 
been  decided  by  the  State  courts;  and  it  is  not  probable  they 
will  be  driven  from  their  course  by  the  denunciations  of  the 
gentleman  from  Virginia.  It  would  be  but  a  poor  consolation 
for  a  citizen  who  was  dragged  from  the  extreme  verge  of  Alle- 
ghany county  in  Maryland,  to  be  tried  for  some  trifling  mis- 
demeanor committed  against  the  police  of  this  road,  to  be  in- 
formed that  in  the  opinion  of  the  gentleman  it  was  a  daring  act 
in  the  State  tribunals  to  have  refused  to  take  jurisdiction  of  the 
offence.  On  this  subject  their  decisions  have  been  uniform, 
as  may  be  seen  by  a  reference  to  Sergeant's  Constitutional  Law, 


404  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

pages  271,  '2,  and  '3:  and  this,  notwithstanding  the  jurisdiction 
may  have  been  expressly  given  them  by  act  of  Congress.  In 
Ohio,  in  New  York,  in  Virginia,  in  Kentucky,  and  in  Mary- 
land, the  question  is  settled;  and  that  upon  constitutional  prin- 
ciples, which,  in  my  humble  judgment,  cannot  be  controverted. 

But  let  me  direct  the  gentleman  to  an  authority  for  which 
he  will  probably  entertain  a  higher  respect  than  for  the  judgments 
of  State  tribunals.  I  refer  to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Justice  Story — 
an  able  and  accomplished  judge,  but  one  who  has  certainly  never 
been  suspected  of  a  desire  to  curtail  the  legitimate  authority  of  the 
Federal  Government.  In  delivering  the  opinion  of  the  court  in 
the  case  of  Martin  vs.  Hunter's  lessee,  he  uses  the  following 
language :  "  Congress  cannot  vest  any  portion  of  the  judicial 
power  of  the  United  States,  except  in  courts  ordained  and  estab- 
lished by  itself."  And  again :  "  No  part  of  the  criminal  juris- 
diction of  the  United  States  can,  consistently  with  the  constitu- 
tion, be  delegated  to  State  tribunals."  I  refer  the  gentleman 
from  Virginia  to  the  whole  opinion,  which  he  will  find  reported 
in  1  Wheaton,  323.     Vide,  also,  Wheaton's  Digest,  109,  p.  103, 

%  '5>  '6. 

Such  would  be  the  inconvenience,  and  such  the  oppression, 
of  having  this  new  code  of  laws  executed  by  the  courts  of  the 
United  States,  that  I  declare  most  solemnly,  I  would  not,  by 
my  vote,  accept  a  road  for  the  people  of  the  district  which  I 
have  the  honor,  in  part,  of  representing,  if  its  grant  were  sub- 
jected to  such  conditions,  even  if  I  believed  we  possessed  the 
constitutional  power  to  pass  the  bill.  The  free  exercise  of  this 
power,  which  the  Committee  of  Roads  and  Canals  contemplate, 
would  soon  render  the  whole  system  of  internal  improvements 
odious. 

What  necessity,  I  ask  again,  is  there  for  the  passage  of  this 
bill  ?  Cannot  turnpike  gates  be  as  well  established  by  the  States 
through  which  this  road  passes?  May  not  the  provisions 
of  this  bill  be  as  well  enacted  by  the  Legislatures  of  Maryland, 
Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia,  as  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States?  Why  not  ask  them  to  do  so?  Should  they  refuse,  it 
will  then  be  time  enough  for  Congress  to  adopt  this  doubtful  and 
dangerous  measure.  "  Nee  Deus  inter  sit  nisi  nodus  vindice 
dignus."  No  one  doubts  the  power  of  the  States :  and  whether 
the  toll  be  collected  and  the  road  be  preserved  under  State  or 
United  States  authority,  must  be  a  matter  of  indifference  to  those 
interested. 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  405 

I  confess,  therefore,  I  was  astonished  to  hear  the  gravity 
and  solemnity  with  which  the  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr. 
Storrs]  treated  this  part  of  the  subject.  He  says  this  is  a  most 
grave  question.  Ohio  has  a  vested  right  in  the  road.  We  can- 
not, we  dare  not,  transfer  it  to  the  States.  He  asks,  shall  we 
give  away  this  road?  I  answer,  by  no  means.  No  person  ever 
thought  of  such  a  gift.  The  road  is  now  going  to  ruin;  and 
for  the  benefit  of  Ohio,  we  transfer  a  naked  trust  to  the  States 
through  which  it  passes,  on  condition  that  they  will  keep  it  in 
repair.  We  consign  this  trust  to  the  only  persons  who  have 
the  power  of  executing  it  with  advantage  for  the  benefit  of  Ohio 
and  the  other  States.  No  beneficial  interest  will  pass  by  this 
transfer.  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia  will  be  trus- 
tees; but  with  full  power,  according  to  the  admission  of  all,  to 
erect  toll-gates,  and  keep  the  road  in  repair.  By  the  amendment 
we  leave  it  to  be  inferred,  either  that  we  have  not  the  power 
ourselves  to  execute  the  trust,  or  that  its  exercise  would  be  incon- 
venient ;  and  we  commit  the  road  to  the  State  Legislatures,  where 
this  power  can  be  exercised  in  the  most  efficient  and  beneficial 
manner.  We  have  already  redeemed  our  pledge  over  and  over 
again  to  Ohio.  We  have  already  appropriated  to  the  construc- 
tion of  this  road  far  more  than  we  were  bound  to  do  by  our  con- 
tract. But  still  I  do  not  desire  to  stop  at  this  point.  I  am 
willing  to  make  appropriations  to  carry  the  road  to  the  Missis- 
sippi, provided  the  States  through  which  it  may  pass  will  agree  to 
accept  it  when  completed,  and  undertake  to  keep  it  in  repair. 
Without  this  preliminary,  for  one  I  shall  now  stop:  and  I  shall 
never  vote  another  dollar,  if  toll-gates  are  to  be  erected  under  the 
authority  of  Congress.  Here  I  take  my  stand  on  the  doctrine 
of  internal  improvements.  Thus  far  have  I  gone.  I  shall  go 
no  further.  My  last  limit  is  the  point  where  the  power  of 
appropriation  ends,  and  jurisdiction  commences. 

And  now,  sir,  allow  me  to  make  a  remark,  in  reply,  on  the 
subject  of  the  precedents  which  have  been  cited  by  gentlemen. 
It  might  be  sufficient  for  me  to  say,  that  no  precedent  exists  to 
sustain  the  principle,  and  the  only  principle  now  in  contest — the 
power  to  erect  toll-gates.  But  I  shall  not  rest  satisfied  here. 
The  proceedings  on  the  celebrated  bill  which  passed  both  Houses 
of  Congress  in  1817,  and  which  was  returned  by  Mr.  Madison 
with  his  objections,  far  from  being  an  authority  against  the  posi- 
tion for  which  I  contend,  is  one  decidedly  in  my  favor.  The 
bonus  to  be  paid  by  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  for  its  char- 


406  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

ter,  and  the  dividends  upon  our  stock,  were  to  be  applied  by  this 
bill  for  constructing  such  roads  and  canals  only,  "  in  each  State, 
as  Congress,  with  the  assent  of  such  State,  shall  by  law  direct. :' 
Here  the  mere  simple  power  of  appropriation,  and  nothing  more, 
was  claimed;  and  that  was  to  be  exercised  only  with  the  assent 
of  the  States.  Yet  the  bill  was  rejected  by  the  President.  Mr. 
Monroe  having  in  the  meantime  become  President,  recommended, 
in  his  message  at  the  commencement  of  the  next  session,  an 
amendment  to  the  constitution,  granting  to  Congress  the  power 
over  internal  improvements.  The  subject  was  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee of  this  House,  and  upon  their  report  it  was  solemnly 
considered  and  debated. 

On  the  13th  of  March,  18 18,  the  three  resolutions  reported 
by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  affirming  the  power  of  Congress 
to  construct  roads  and  canals  for  military  and  commercial  pur- 
poses, and  for  carrying  the  mail,  were  all  negatived.  And  why? 
The  reason  must  have  been  that  the  House  did  not  believe  we 
possessed  the  power  of  assuming  jurisdiction  for  these  purposes 
over  the  territory  of  the  States.  This  is  made  manifest  by  the 
passage  of  the  resolution,  at  the  same  time,  which  asserted  an 
existing  power  in  Congress  to  appropriate  money  for  all  these 
purposes.  Thus  it  appears  that  the  very  distinction  for  which 
I  am  contending  was  adopted  by  this  House  in  181 8.  Here, 
then,  is  an  authority  directly  in  my  favor. 

Afterwards,  in  1822,  when  the  bill  passed  both  Houses  for 
erecting  toll-gates  upon  this  road,  it  was  rejected  by  the  Presi- 
dent, and  his  objections  were  sustained  by  a  majority  of  the 
House.  It  is  true  that,  since  that  period,  a  bill  similar  to  the 
one  now  before  the  committee  has  passed  this  House,  after  a 
resort  to  the  previous  question;  but  it  was  suffered  to  sleep 
in  the  Senate.  Where,  then,  are  the  precedents  of  the  gentle- 
men to  sustain  this  measure  ?  The  weight  of  authority  is  clearly 
on  the  other  side. 

I  come  now  to  notice  some  of  the  remarks  of  my  colleague 
[Mr.  Anderson]  who  first  addressed  the  committee,  which  indi- 
cated a  state  of  feeling  towards  myself  I  ought  not  to  have  ex- 
pected. He  thought  proper  to  say,  (I  wish  to  quote  his  very 
words,)  "  This  is  the  first  time  I  have  ever  heard  that  the  power 
to  make  roads,  and  the  power  to  keep  them  in  repair  by  erecting 
toll-gates,  could  be  distinguished.  Such  a  distinction  appears 
to  me  to  be  absurd."  The  gentleman  ought  to  know  that  this 
is  not  language  to  be  used  on  this  floor.     When  I  was  laboring 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  407 

to  establish  the  distinction,  a  distinction  which  he  could  not  doubt 
I  sincerely  believed  to  exist,  he  might  have  used  a  little  more 
courtesy  than  to  have  denounced  it  as  absurd. 

[Mr.  Anderson  here  explained.  He  said  he  had  not  used 
the  word  "  absurd."  He  had  said  it  was  the  first  time  he  had 
ever  heard  such  a  doctrine.] 

Where,  then,  said  Mr.  B.,  has  the  gentleman  resided?  In 
what  benighted  part  of  the  world  has  been  his  abode?  I  have 
always  understood  there  was  as  much  intelligence  and  infor- 
mation in  the  vicinity  of  the  gentleman,  as  in  any  other  portion 
of  the  Union.  Had  he  never  heard  that,  seven  years  ago,  the 
President  of  the  United  States  had  taken  this  very  distinction, 
and  maintained  it  in  an  argument  of  sixty  pages,  and  that  this 
House  had  yielded  their  assent  to  the  distinction?  Had  he 
never  heard  that,  since  that  period,  humble  as  I  am,  upon  all 
proper  occasions,  I  have  been  endeavoring,  upon  this  floor,  to 
sustain  and  enforce  the  same  distinction?  Yet  he  has  informed 
the  House,  this  is  the  first  time  that  he  ever  heard  there  was  a 
distinction  between  the  simple  power  of  appropriating  and  ad- 
vancing money  as  a  mere  proprietor  to  construct  or  preserve 
a  road,  and  the  assumption  of  jurisdiction  over  it  as  sovereign, 
within  the  dominion  of  the  States,  for  the  purpose  of  collecting 
tolls  and  keeping  it  in  repair.  No  distinction  between  expending 
money,  and  the  exercise  of  sovereign  power. 

I  admit  that  Congress  had  the  power  to  apply  the  money  in 
the  public  treasury  to  the  construction  of  this  road.  What  then 
follows?  Merely  that  Congress  possesses  the  power,  if  they 
think  proper  to  exercise  it,  of  applying  money  from  the  same 
source  to  keep  it  in  repair.  I  have  several  times  voted  for  such 
appropriations.  But  does  it  follow  that  we  have  the  power  to 
raise  the  tolls  necessary  for  this  purpose,  by  assuming  a  local 
jurisdiction  over  the  soil  of  the  States,  never  contemplated  by 
the  constitution  ? 

But  the  gentleman  thinks  he  has  perceived  in  my  amendment 
the  nucleus  of  a  system  to  distribute  the  surplus  funds  of  the 
Union  among  the  several  States.  I  should  have  supposed  that 
no  colleague  of  mine  would  have  seen  a  spectre  in  such  a  propo- 
sition, had  it  even  been  directly  presented.  Yet  I  can  declare 
most  solemnly  that  such  an  idea  never  once  occurred  to  me  in 
proposing  the  amendment.  For  this  discovery  I  am  indebted 
entirely  to  the  superior  penetration  of  the  gentleman.  I  must 
remark,  however,  that  I  am  beginning  to  adopt  the  belief,  that 


403  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

this  system,  which  has  been  recommended  by  one  branch  of  the 
Legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  is  the  best  that  can  be  devised.  I 
am  growing  tired  of  the  policy  of  seeing  my  own  State  exhaust- 
ing herself  and  taxing  her  citizens  for  the  purpose  of  making 
internal  improvements  within  her  own  limits,  whilst  the  treasury 
of  the  United  States,  to  which  she  contributes  the  one-seventh, 
is  lavished  in  making  similar  improvements  for  the  benefit  of 
other  States  of  the  Union.  The  system  prescribed  by  my  col- 
league is  the  only  one,  I  fear,  under  which  we  can  expect  justice 
to  Pennsylvania.  Besides,  there  is  much  cause  to  apprehend, 
from  our  own  experience,  that  this  system  is  the  only  one  which 
will  fix  our  attention  upon  the  great  objects  of  federal  legislation 
intrusted  to  us  by  the  constitution;  instead  of  diverting  it  to 
the  business  of  a  court  of  quarter  sessions  and  to  the  innu- 
merable petty  and  selfish  details  and  understandings  which  must 
arise  from  the  laying  out  and  constructing  roads  and  canals  in 
every  portion  of  the  Union.  I  wish,  however,  to  be  distinctly 
understood  that  I  have  not  finally  made  up  my  mind  on  this 
subject. 

I  shall  now  settle  my  accounts  with  another  colleague,  [Mr. 
Stewart.]  In  discharging  this  duty,  I  shall  have  no  occasion  to 
notice  any  arguments  he  may  have  advanced  bearing  upon  the 
question.  His  unprovoked  attempts  to  be  severe,  at  my  expense, 
are  my  only  reason  and  my  only  apology  for  detaining  the  com- 
mittee a  few  moments  in  adverting  to  his  remarks.  I  had  not 
even  anticipated  his  opposition  to  the  amendment. 

The  gentleman  has  thought  fit  to  express  his  regret  that 
"  I  had  recently  become  a  convert  to  State  rights  and  an  enemy 
to  this  road,  considering  that  as  the  democratic  course."  Now, 
sir,  what  ought  I  to  think  of  any  gentleman  upon  this  floor,  and 
especially  a  colleague,  who,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  all  the  facts, 
could  utter  such  an  expression?  He  knew  perfectly  well,  that 
so  long  ago  as  February,  1823,  I  moved  an  amendment  similar 
to  that  now  before  the  committee,  and  have  been  pursuing  it  ever 
since,  under  every  aspect  which  the  political  horizon  has  assumed. 
My  change  of  opinion  on  this  subject,  and  the  reasons  for  it, 
were  frankly  avowed  six  years  ago  upon  this  floor,  long  before 
even  suspicion  herself  could  have  attributed  it  to  any  improper 
motive.  Even  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  Buckner,] 
though  occasionally  somewhat  severe,  has  congratulated  me  for 
having  changed  my  opinion  at  so  early  a  period,  and  escaped 
in  good  time.     Yet  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  has  harped 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  409 

upon  what  he  calls  my  recent  conversion,  and  has  affected  to 
consider  it  as  strange  and  unaccountable. 

The  gentleman  commenced  his  remarks  by  declaring  that  he 
was  not  in  favor  of  all  roads  and  canals.  He  said  there  were 
township  roads,  county  roads,  State  roads,  and  United  States 
roads ;  that  the  power  of  the  General  Government  only  extended 
to  the  construction  of  the  latter.  But  how  shall  we  ascertain 
what  are  these  roads?  The  gentleman  has  favored  us  with  a 
compendious  rule.  Each  member,  he  says,  ought  to  ask  himself, 
is  this  road  or  canal  necessary  for  commerce,  for  war,  or  for 
carrying  the  mail?  If  so,  Congress  have  the  power  to  construct 
it.  What,  then,  is  the  gentleman's  limit?  According  to  his 
notions,  we  possess  the  power  of  constructing  all  roads  on  which 
the  mail  must  be  carried,  all  roads  and  canals  over  which  troops 
or  military  stores  must  pass,  and  all  roads  and  canals  necessary 
for  conducting  the  commerce  between  the  several  States.  And 
over  all  these  we  may  extend  our  jurisdiction  and  collect  tolls, 
according  to  the  constitutional  creed  of  the  gentleman.  And  yet 
he  talks  about  limitations  to  federal  power!  The  gentleman's 
constitutional  notions  are  truly  a  strange  medley.  He  will 
never  be  accused,  as  my  friends  from  Virginia  have  been,  of 
drawing  nice  distinctions  and  refining  too  much  on  abstract  ques- 
tions. I  will  warrant  him  against  this  danger.  It  will  never 
be  his  fate,  as  it  was  that  of  Burke,  "  to  cut  blocks  with  a  razor." 
I  recollect  a  constitutional  scruple  of  the  gentleman's,  some  years 
ago,  which  astonished  the  House.  It  would  have  been  highly 
amusing,  had  it  not  been  made  at  the  expense  of  humanity.  We 
had,  by  treaty,  deprived  the  Florida  Indians  of  their  best  lands. 
They  were  starving  in  the  swamps  we  had  left  them.  They 
came  here,  not  asking  their  lands  to  be  restored,  but  begging  for 
bread  to  preserve  their  lives.  The  strong  case  which  they  pre- 
sented, and  their  extreme  misery,  excited  sympathy  in  every  heart. 
In  the  midst  of  this  feeling,  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
rose,  and  made  a  constitutional  argument  to  prove  that  Congress 
had  no  power  to  give  bread  to  these  starving  Indians.  The  gen- 
tleman, truly,  on  constitutional  questions,  strains  at  a  gnat  and 
swallows  a  camel. 

The  gentleman's  guards  against  infractions  of  the  constitu- 
tion are  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  ballot  box.  These  are  both 
excellent  in  their  kind,  though  different  in  their  mode  of  opera- 
tion. The  one  destroys  the  law,  the  other  the  law-maker.  It  is 
often  difficult,  however,  to  know  the  precise  point  decided  by  the 


410  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

ballot  boxes.  Whether  the  gentleman's  constituents  have  decided 
against  him,  because  he  thought  it  unconstitutional  to  save  the 
Florida  Indians  from  starvation,  or  because  he  thought  it  con- 
stitutional to  erect  toll-gates  upon  the  Cumberland  road,  I  shall 
not  pretend  to  determine.  It  is  very  certain  the  "  great  repub- 
lican party,"  about  whom  we  have  heard  so  much  in  this  debate, 
could  have  no  agency  in  his  defeat.  In  the  canvass,  he  pledged 
himself  that  if  elected  he  would  attribute  the  glory  of  his  success 
to  the  Jackson  men.  I  can  never  believe  they  possessed  so  little 
magnanimity  as  to  resist  such  a  feeling  appeal. 

But,  after  all,  how  was  I  astonished  to  hear  the  gentleman 
conclude  his  remarks  with  the  following  sentences :  "lam  bound 
in  candor  to  admit,  that  the  power  to  erect  toll-gates  is  not  so 
clear  as  the  power  to  construct  this  road.  I  am  not  very  solici- 
tous whether  the  road  is  preserved  by  the  United  States  or  the 
States.  I  hope  the  bill  will  pass  either  in  the  one  shape  or  the 
other;  and  whichever  shape  it  may  be  put  I  will  give  it  my  vote." 
I  quote  his  very  words,  because  they  were  so  remarkable  that  I 
took  them  down  at  the  moment,  and  I  find  the  National  Journal 
has  reported  them  nearly  in  the  same  language.  To  what  a  lame 
and  impotent  conclusion  does  the  gentleman  arrive  after  all  his 
premises  ?  Who  could  ever  have  supposed,  until  he  announced  it 
himself,  that  it  was  a  matter  of  indifference  to  him  whether  this 
road  should  be  ceded  to  the  States  or  not  ?  After  such  a  conclu- 
sion, well  might  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Roads  and 
Canals  [Mr.  Mercer]  accuse  him  of  defection.  Yet  I  have  been 
denounced  as  a  most  pestiferous  democrat,  as  possessing  the  zeal 
of  a  recent  convert,  for  proposing  an  amendment  in  favor  of 
which  the  gentleman  himself  will  vote,  should  it  be  engrafted 
on  the  bill  by  the  committee.  The  course  of  the  gentleman 
towards  me  has  been  very  unkind,  and  nothing  but  the  justice 
which  I  owed  to  myself  could  have  compelled  me  to  make  these 
remarks. 

I  now  approach  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  [Mr.  Buck- 
ner.]  His  arrows,  although  they  were  sharp,  were  not  malig- 
nant; whilst  his  argument  was  ingenious.  In  the  course  of  my 
remarks  I  shall  take  care  to  speak  of  him  with  nothing  more  than 
retributive  justice. 

The  gentleman  commenced  his  observation  by  quoting  a 
saying  of  some  celebrated,  though  to  me  unknown  member  of  the 
British  Parliament,  who  had  declared  that  whenever  "  he  heard 
the  mention  made  of  the  people's  rights,  he  was  prepared  for 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  411 

the  desolating  doctrines  of  anarchy  and  confusion,  and  he  all  at 
once  became  alarmed  for  the  safety  of  the  throne  and  the  con- 
stitution." And  has  it  come  to  this?  Are  the  representatives 
of  the  American  people  to  be  denounced  for  asserting  their  rights 
and  those  of  the  States  upon  this  floor?  If  these  rights  are 
not  to  be  asserted  here,  before  what  other  earthly  tribunal  shall 
they  be  proclaimed  and  enforced  ?  I  am  sorry  that  the  gentleman 
took  this  text  from  a  British  statesman  whose  name  he  has 
not  thought  proper  to  mention;  and  I  am  still  more  sorry  that 
the  greater  part  of  his  argument  seemed  to  proceed  upon  the 
principle  that  this  text  might  be  true. 

The  gentleman  then  proceeded  to  attack  the  position  which 
I  had  maintained,  that  incidental  power  must,  from  its  nature, 
be  subordinate;  that  it  could  not  transcend  the  power  which 
called  it  into  existence.  The  present  President  of  the  United 
States,  [Mr.  Adams,]  an  authority  which  the  gentleman  will 
respect,  has  laid  it  down,  that  the  means  must  be  subordinate 
to  the  end.  This  principle  is  at  the  very  root  of  any  just  con- 
struction of  the  constitution.  And  yet  the  gentleman  though 
he  would  not  say  this  was  "  unintelligible  jargon,"  left  it  to  be 
inferred.  Now  I  shall  assert  that  no  greater  political  absurdity 
can  exist,  than  a  Government  confined  to  enumerated  objects 
of  power  by  a  written  constitution,  and  yet  at  liberty  to 
assume  other  distinct  and  independent  powers  of  a  character 
more  formidable  than  those  delegated,  for  the  pretended  pur- 
pose of  carrying  them  into  effect.  A  Government  restricted 
as  to  its  ends,  but  wholly  unlimited  in  regard  to  its  means! 
Imagination  cannot  present  a  stronger  case  to  illustrate  my 
position  than  the  one  now  before  the  committee.  This  Gov- 
ernment is  expressly  restricted  from  acquiring  any  jurisdiction 
within  the  States,  except  over  small  portions  of  territory  abso- 
lutely necessary  for  the  defence  of  the  country;  and  even  this 
cannot  be  acquired  without  the  consent  of  the  States;  and  yet 
gentlemen  now  claim,  as  a  mere  incident  to  the  power  of  appro- 
priation for  internal  improvements,  jurisdiction  over  a  road 
which  will  extend  from  Cumberland  to  the  Mississippi.  Al- 
though you  cannot  directly  acquire  jurisdiction  over  any  por- 
tion of  the  territory  of  the  States,  except  for  the  purposes 
of  war,  you  may  indirectly  assume  jurisdiction  over  all  the 
post-roads  and  canals  in  the  country.  Such  a  principle  would 
be  subversive  of  all  limitations  to  federal  power.  It  would 
render   all   the  wholesome   restraints   of  the   system   nugatory. 


412  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

The  true  principle  is,  that  although  the  means  may  be  varied, 
with  the  ever-varying  changes  of  society,  they  must  still  be 
subordinate  to  the  end.  But  I  shall  not  say  that  the  gentle- 
man's argument  in  favor  of  a  contrary  position  was  "  unintelli- 
gible jargon." 

In  passing,  I  would  just  observe,  that  the  doctrine  on  the 
subject  of  internal  improvements,  seems  to  have  undergone  a 
great  change  in  Maryland  within  the  last  thirty  years.  In  1802, 
the  Legislature  of  that  State  thought  it  necessary  to  pass  an 
act,  authorizing  the  General  Government  to  repair  the  post- 
roads  within  its  territory.  Now  the  same  State  voluntarily 
yields  to  Congress  jurisdiction  over  all  that  portion  of  the 
Cumberland  road  within  its  limits.  It  is  thus  we  are  depart- 
ing from  original  principles  and  a  strict  construction  of  federal 
power. 

The  gentleman  believes  there  will  be  no  danger  of  any 
collision  between  the  Federal  and  State  authorities,  should  they 
both  exercise  the  sovereign  power  of  constructing  roads  and 
canals.  But  what  has  the  history  of  the  last  year  taught  us 
upon  this  subject?  If  we  had  undertaken  to  construct  the 
Chesapeake  and  Ohio  canal  by  our  own  authority,  the  United 
States  would,  at  this  very  moment,  have  been  in  collision  with 
the  State  of  Maryland.  This  canal  and  the  Baltimore  railroad 
are  now  contesting  which  of  them  is  entitled  to  the  choice  of 
locution  1  along  the  Potomac.  And  here  permit  me  to  observe, 
that  the  railroad,  which  we  have  not  patronized,  is,  in  my 
opinion,  a  much  more  national  and  a  much  more  practicable 
undertaking  than  the  canal,  which  we  have  taken  under  our 
fostering  care.  The  railroad  may  extend  to  the  Ohio;  but 
the  canal  can  never  proceed  beyond  the  coal  mines  near  Cum- 
berland. Gentlemen  cannot,  I  think,  seriously  suppose  that 
the  Allegheny  mountain  is  ever  to  be  passed  over  by  locks, 
or  passed  through  by  tunnels. 

I  might  mention  another  case  in  illustration.  The  Legis- 
lature of  Pennsylvania  have  refused  to  permit  a  railroad  to 
be  made  from  Baltimore  to  the  Susquehannah.  It  would  have 
required  powerful  reasons  to  have  induced  me  to  vote  in  this 
manner;  but  still  the  Legislature  have  thus  determined.  Now, 
suppose  the  power  of  this  Government  unquestionable  to  enter 
the  territory  of  the   States  and  to  construct   roads;    ought  it 


1  So  in  the  original  print,  but  evidently  a  mistake  for  "  location. 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  413 

ever  to  be  exercised  without  their  consent?  Would  it  not 
necessarily  produce  collisions?  Compared  with  many  of  the 
projects  which  have  been  submitted  to  us  by  the  Committee 
of  Roads  and  Canals,  this  railroad  is  eminently  national.  It 
has  become  the  fashion  upon  this  floor  to  call  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania  unostentatious;  but  yet  she  will  always  be  found 
sternly  maintaining  her  rights.  Let  the  gentleman  from  Vir- 
ginia, [Mr.  Mercer,]  with  all  the  powers  of  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, attempt  to  construct  this  railroad  through  her  terri- 
tory, in  opposition  to  her  real  or  supposed  interest,  and  the 
consequences,  if  nothing  more,  might  at  least  be  fatal  to  his 
whole  system.  Adopt  the  policy  of  the  amendment,  and  you 
then  have  no  collisions  to  fear. 

But  the  gentleman  has  given  still  stronger  evidence  of  his 
devotion  to  federal  power  than  any  which  I  have  yet  cited. 
He  declared  that  he  did  not  know  what  I  meant  by  a  whole- 
some jealousy  of  this  power,  and  disapproved  even  of  the  use 
of  such  terms.  And  is  this  a  doctrine  proper  to  be  advanced 
in  the  American  Congress?  Are  we  to  disregard  the  history 
of  all  the  free  Governments  which  have  ever  existed?  Are  we 
to  set  at  naught  the  political  maxim  of  the  friends  of  civil 
liberty  in  every  age,  that  jealousy  on  the  part  of  the  people 
has  ever  been  the  condition  on  which  liberty  can  be  enjoyed? 
It  is  the  nature  of  man  to  grasp  at  power,  and  this  principle 
is  not  changed  in  a  republic.  A  wholesome  jealousy  of  our 
rulers  is  the  very  palladium  of  our  safety.  Remove  this,  and 
all  is  gone.  In  this  republic,  founded,  administered,  and  de- 
fended by  popular  jealousy,  I  never  expected  to  hear  a  gentle- 
man so  respectable  avow  that  the  very  phrase  was  grating  to  his 
ears. 

The  gentleman  has  been  pleased  to  compare  my  conversion 
to  that  of  the  Apostle  Paul.  I  can  assure  him  it  was  neither 
sudden  nor  miraculous.  It  took  place  in  1822,  before  the  age 
of  political  miracles  had  commenced,  and  was  the  result  of 
Mr.  Monroe's  long  and  able  message  on  the  subject,  and  the 
reflections  to  which  that  document  gave  birth.  The  gentleman 
from  Kentucky  is  so  much  devoted  to  his  high-toned  notions 
of  federal  power,  that  I  fear  a  miracle  would  scarce  save  him. 
Like  the  companions  of  the  Apostle,  he  might  be  confounded 
by  the  light  which  shone  around  him,  but  not  converted  to  the 
truth.  The  gentleman  has  been  quite  scriptural  in  his  allu- 
sions.    He  has  congratulated  me  on  my  escape  in  good  time 


414  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

from  the  wrath  to  come,  and  that  I  am  now  a  member  of  the 
great  republican  party.  In  return  for  his  congratulation,  I 
must  express  my  regret  that  he  is  yet  in  the  gall  of  bitterness, 
and  in  the  bond  of  iniquity.  I  should  help  him  if  I  could, 
but  I  fear  his  case  is  hopeless.  He  has  recently  almost  escaped 
to  a  judicial  station;  and  as  this  would  have  been  a  great 
temporal  deliverance,  I  should  have  rejoiced  had  he  been  more 
successful. 

The  gentleman  has  said  that  he  understood  I  had  at  one 
time  belonged  to  the  federal  party,  which  he  complimented  by 
calling  it  an  independent  class  of  men.  His  information  has 
been  correct.  I  trust  I  shall  never  blush  to  have  been  attached 
to  that  party,  of  which  the  father  of  his  country  was  the  head. 
I  take  pride,  however,  in  declaring  that  I  was  a  Washington 
federalist,  and,  when  my  country  was  in  danger,  I  had  no 
constitutional  or  other  scruples  about  the  propriety  of  defend- 
ing it  against  a  foreign  foe.  The  gentleman  says  I  have  hith- 
erto always  acted  with  independence;  if  he  means  to  insinuate 
that  this  will  not  be  my  course  hereafter,  he  is  greatly  mis- 
taken. Thank  God,  I  am  as  independent  as  I  ever  was.  I 
hope  nothing  and  fear  nothing  from  any  administration.  I 
am  neither  a  petitioner  nor  an  expectant.  I  shall  continue  to 
support  the  great  republican  family,  as  the  gentleman  calls  it, 
so  long  as  it  shall  continue  true  to  its  principles ;  and  I  have  no 
objection  to  be  called  a  democrat.  But  if  the  gentleman  sup- 
poses that  for  any  office,  of  which,  humble  as  I  am,  I  might  be 
thought  worthy,  I  would  decline  to  serve  out  the  term  for 
which  I  have  been  recently  elected,  and  abandon  constituents 
who  have  sustained  me  amidst  difficulties  and  dangers  of  no 
ordinary  character,  I  can  assure  him  that  he  does  me  great 
injustice. 

I  have  always  heard  that  the  gentleman  himself  was  for- 
merly a  federalist.  It  is  true  that  he  and  I  have  taken  very 
different  roads  since  the  dissolution  of  the  old  parties;  but  yet, 
on  account  of  the  memory  of  the  olden  time,  if  for  nothing  else, 
I  think  he  might  have  spared  some  of  his  personal  remarks. 
But  let  us  part  in  peace.     I  desire  nothing  else. 

I  shall  neither  undertake  to  defend  the  editor  of  the  Tele- 
graph, nor  the  Committee  on  Retrenchment,  against  the  attack 
of  the  gentleman.  If  there  be  any  man  alive  who  is  capable 
of  defending  himself,  it  is  that  editor.  I  am  neither  his  advo- 
cate nor  defender.      As   to  the   Committee   on   Retrenchment, 


1829]        SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  415 

I  shall  exercise  the  same  forbearance.  They  have,  I  fear,  intro- 
duced many  bills  which  will  never  pass.  To  some  of  their  meas- 
ures I  am  decidedly  opposed,  but  still  they  deserve  the  thanks 
of  the  House  and  of  the  country.  If  they  have  gone  too  far 
in  the  cause  of  reform,  it  is  a  rare  error  in  these  days. 

I  was  not  a  little  astonished  that  the  gentleman  should  have 
found  fault  with  me  for  paying  a  passing  tribute  of  respect  to 
the  State  of  Virginia.  As  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  have 
I  not  a  right  to  feel  proud  of  that  State?  Has  she  not  pro- 
duced men  who  had  a  distinguished  agency  both  in  forming 
the  federal  constitution,  and  maintaining  its  principles  in 
peace  and  in  war?  Notwithstanding  my  feelings  of  respect, 
I  am  no  indiscriminate  eulogist  of  Virginian  policy.  I  believe, 
if  a  portion  of  the  ability  and  eloquence  which  her  distinguished 
sons  have  displayed  in  constitutional  disquisitions  had  been 
employed  in  sustaining  the  wise  measures,  and  in  combating  the 
false  policy,  which  have  been  proposed  in  Congress,  their  labors 
would  have  been  more  useful  to  the  country.  Still,  I  am  sur- 
prised that  an  obscure  individual,  like  myself,  should  have  been 
so  severely  criticised  for  expressing  a  favorable  opinion  of 
that  ancient  and  distinguished  commonwealth.  If  I  were  to 
remove  to-morrow  from  my  native  State,  it  is  probable,  from  the 
similarity  of  our  institutions,  our  policy,  and  our  laws,  I  should 
select  the  State  of  Ohio  for  my  residence — that  very  State  whose 
compact  with  the  United  States  I  have  been  attempting,  in  the 
opinion  of  gentlemen,  to  violate. 

It  has  been  strongly  insinuated,  that  to  deliver  this  road 
to  Pennsylvania  would  be  to  commit  the  lamb  to  the  wolf.  I 
shall  not  condescend  to  answer  such  insinuations.  The  road 
passes  ninety  miles  through  our  territory.  It  accommodates 
three  populous  and  wealthy  counties;  and  yet  it  is  supposed 
we  might  abandon  it  to  ruin.  When  was  Pennsylvania  ever 
known  to  neglect  the  interest  of  her  own  citizens,  or  the  obli- 
gations of  her  own  honor? 

The  gentleman  himself,  after  admitting  that  the  tribunals 
of  the  States  could  not  be  used  by  this  Government  for  the  pur- 
pose of  enforcing  its  system  of  policy  along  the  road,  declares 
that  the  argument  against  the  bill  of  the  most  weight  is,  the 
difficulty  of  establishing  tribunals  for  this  purpose.  He  sug- 
gests the  appointment  of  twenty-five  justices  of  the  peace,  which 
he  thinks  would  be  sufficient  between  Cumberland  and  Wheel- 
ing.    But   superior   judicial   officers   would   become   necessary; 


416  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

for  the  gentleman  surely  does  not  intend  that  the  summary  con- 
victions and  other  proceedings  of  the  justices  of  the  peace,  with- 
out the  aid  of  a  jury,  should,  in  all  cases,  be  final.  It  is  thus  that 
power  goes  stealing  on  from  one  encroachment  to  another.  I  have 
not  the  time,  nor  would  the  committee  have  the  patience,  to  enable 
me  to  pursue  this  branch  of  the  subject.  I  will  merely  ask  any 
gentleman  acquainted  with  the  principles  upon  which  the  con- 
stitution was  founded,  if  he  can  believe  its  framers  ever  intended 
to  introduce  United  States'  justices  of  the  peace,  throughout 
the  different  States,  for  the  purpose  of  exercising  jurisdiction 
over  the  canals  and  highways  of  the  country?  Would  not  such 
an  exercise  of  power  be  equally  at  war  with  all  its  general 
provisions,  and  with  all  sound  policy? 

Before  I  conclude  I  wish  again  to  direct  the  particular 
attention  of  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Roads  and 
Canals  to  an  argument  of  mine,  which  has  not  been  answered, 
which  there  has  not  even  been  an  attempt  to  answer,  through- 
out the  whole  course  of  the  debate.  There  has  been  much  in- 
genious play  around  it,  but  it  has  not  once  been  fairly  met.  Let 
it  be  granted,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  under  the  power 
to  establish  post  offices  and  post  roads,  you  can  exercise  the 
sovereign  power  of  constructing  such  roads  throughout  the 
States.  What  would  then  be  the  sole  purpose  of  this  power? 
To  enable  you  to  transport  the  mail  over  these  roads,  once  a 
day,  or  once  a  week.  It  would  be  a  right  of  passage,  for  the 
single  object.  The  power  that  you  have  is  spent,  when  the 
mail  is  safely  carried.  But  can  this  authority,  to  be  exercised 
simply  for  the  transportation  of  the  mail,  transfer  to  you,  by 
implication,  the  sovereign  power  of  closing  up  these  roads  by 
the  erection  of  toll-gates,  and  taking  them  under  your  own 
exclusive  jurisdiction?  Can  a  power  granted  for  a  single  pur- 
pose give  you  an  unlimited  control?  Can  it  authorize  you  to 
regulate  the  use  of  these  roads,  by  the  citizens  of  the  States, 
for  all  other  purposes  ?  This  is  the  question  to  which  I  demand 
an  answer.  The  principle  is  still  worse  as  applied  to  military 
roads.  Are  you,  because  it  may  be  necessary  that  troops  or 
munitions  of  war  may  pass  over  a  road  once  a  year,  or  once  in 
seven  years,  to  take  exclusive  possession  of  this  road?  A  simi- 
lar question  might  be  asked,  in  regard  to  roads  or  canals  used 
for  the  purpose  of  conducting  the  commerce  between  different 
States.  The  gentleman  from  Kentucky  has  made  the  most 
argumentative  speech  upon  this  subject,  and  has  cited  several 


1829]       SPEECH  ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD  417 

cases  in  illustration  of  his  argument.  I  shall  allude  merely 
to  the  strongest.  He  says  that  Congress  have  passed  a  law  im- 
posing a  penalty  on  any  ferryman  who  neglects  or  refuses  to 
carry  the  mail  over  a  river.  Granted.  It  is  right.  It  is  proper. 
The  Federal  Government  alone  possess  the  sovereign  power  of 
carrying  the  mail,  and,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  of  removing 
all  obstructions  to  its  passage.  But  does  it  follow,  because  they 
have  exercised  the  power  of  punishing  a  ferryman  for  violating 
his  duty  in  this  single  case,  that  therefore  they  may  take  the 
ferry  itself  under  their  exclusive  jurisdiction,  prescribe  the  tolls 
for  its  passage,  and  punish,  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States, 
all  the  citizens  of  the  country  who  may  violate  the  regulations 
imposed  by  their  laws?  All  the  other  examples  of  the  gentle- 
man are  of  a  similar  character,  and  require  no  particular  answer. 
They  are  cases  of  the  exercise  of  power  absolutely  necessary 
to  carry  the  enumerated  powers  of  the  constitution  into  effect, 
and  do  not,  in  a  single  instance,  transcend  the  specific  purpose 
for  which  they  were  intended. 

Some  objections  have  been  made  to  the  form  of  the  amend- 
ment which  I  have  presented.  They  will  be  best  answered  by 
asking  it  simply  to  be  read.  It  was  prepared  with  great  care, 
and  after  much  consultation.  So  far  from  purporting  to  affirm 
the  power  of  this  Government  to  erect  toll-gates  and  to  transfer 
our  authority  to  the  States,  as  has  been  alleged  by  one  gentle- 
man, it  even  avoids  an  allegation  that  we  have  any  right  of  prop- 
erty in  the  road.  This  caution  was  used  to  keep  clear  of  the 
scruples  of  those  gentlemen  who  deny  to  Congress  the  right 
of  appropriation.  It  merely  transfers  to  the  States  "  any  right 
of  property  or  claim  "  which  the  United  States  may  have,  pro- 
vided they  will  accept  it,  whatever  it  may  be,  and  keep  the 
road  in  repair  by  the  collection  of  tolls. 

I  am  anxious  the  question  should  now  be  taken.  I  have 
been  urging  it  ever  since  1823.  Let  it  now  be  decided.  I  shall 
submit  with  deference  to  the  decision  of  the  committee,  whatever 
it  may  be.  At  the  same  time  I  must  express  my  conviction, 
that  should  Congress  adopt  the  policy  of  this  bill,  it  will  alarm 
the  people  of  the  States,  and,  in  the  end,  destroy  that  system 
of  internal  improvements  which  the  Committee  on  Roads  and 
Canals  are  so  anxious  to  cherish.  It  will  be  the  best  argument 
that  has  ever  been  used  in  favor  of  the  distribution  of  the 
surplus  funds  of  this  Government  among  the  States. 

27 


418  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

REMARKS,  MARCH  2,  1829, 

ON  THE  CUMBERLAND  ROAD.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  having  offered  an  amendment  proposing  to 
invest  the  President  of  the  United  States  with  power  to  make  an 
arrangement  with  the  States  of  Pennsylvania,  Maryland,  and 
Virginia,  for  the  erection  of  gates  and  collection  of  toll, 

Mr.  Washington  now  demanded  the  previous  question. 

A  conversation  now  ensued,  as  to  the  effect  of  the  previous 
question  under  these  circumstances,  between  Messrs.  P.  P.  Bar- 
bour, Buchanan,  Mercer,  and  Gorham;    when 

Mr.  Buchanan  claimed  the  floor,  as  having  been  improperly 
deprived  of  it  when  the  previous  question  was  demanded. 

The  Speaker  apprehending  that  an  error  had  inadvertently 
happened,  decided  that  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  should 
proceed. 

Mr.  Buchanan  then  said,  he  felt  as  friendly  as  any  gentle- 
man in  the  House  to  the  appropriation  of  money  for  the  exten- 
sion of  the  Cumberland  road  to  the  Mississippi.  He  would 
state  the  single  reason  why  he  felt  himself  compelled — he  would 
say  reluctantly  compelled — to  vote  against  this  bill.  The  House 
had  recently  determined  that  they  would  keep  the  Cumberland 
road  in  repair  by  erecting  toll-gates  upon  it,  under  the  authority 
of  the  Federal  Government.  As  long  as  the  pretension  con- 
tinued to  be  set  up,  which  he  believed  to  be  both  dangerous  and 
unconstitutional,  he  could  not,  nor  would  not,  vote  for  the  con- 
struction of  any  road  intended,  after  its  completion,  to  be  thus 
placed  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States. 


REMARKS,  DECEMBER  7,  1829, 

ON    THE    ELECTION    OF    A    CLERK    OF    THE    HOUSE.2 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  said  he  trusted  that  such 
a  course  would  be  pursued  as  that  the  House  should  at  once 
go  into  an  election  by  ballot.  And  perhaps  his  colleague  was 
wrong  in  now  proposing  a  different  course.  It  had  been  the 
practice,  Mr.  B.  knew,  where  no  opposition  to  the  old  clerk  was 
intended,  to  re-appoint  him  by  resolution.     The  gentleman  from 

1  Register  of  Debates,  20  Cong.  2  Sess.  1828-1829,  V.  385,  3%6- 

2  Register  of  Debates,  21  Cong.  1  Sess.  1820-1830,  VI.,  part  1,  p.  471. 


1829]  STANDING  COMMITTEES  419 

Kentucky,  however,  had  stated  that  he  believed  that  there  were 
other  candidates  for  the  office.  Mr.  B.  said  he  did  not  know  the 
fact :  but,  if  there  were,  the  proper  course  was,  as  usual  in  such 
case,  to  proceed  to  ballot  for  a  clerk.  He  should,  himself,  vote 
to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table,  and  then  to  proceed  to  an 
election  by  ballot. 


REMARKS,  DECEMBER  9,  1829, 

ON  THE  APPOINTMENT  OF   STANDING  COMMITTEES.1 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  that  there  was,  he  believed,  an  unusual 
number  of  new  members  in  the  present  House  of  Representa- 
tives ;  and  it  was  desirable,  certainly,  that  the  Speaker,  who  was 
to  appoint  these  committees,  should  have  time  and  opportunity 
for  inquiry  before  he  appointed  them.  It  was  not  probable, 
he  said,  that  any  legislative  business  would  be  done  in  the  course 
of  the  present  week,  and  for  that  reason  he  moved  that  the  motion 
lie  upon  the  table,  to  give  the  Speaker  a  better  opportunity  of 
becoming  acquainted  with  the  new  members,  &c. 

Mr.  Cambreleng  suggested  to  Mr.  Condict  the  expediency 
of  withdrawing  his  motion  for  the  present,  and  renewing  it 
to-morrow  or  another  day. 

Mr.  Condict  said,  the  practice  heretofore  had  been  to  adopt 
a  similar  order  before  the  message  was  considered;  and,  as  the 
committees  were  not  announced  until  the  reading  of  the  Journal 
on  the  day  following  the  adoption  of  the  order,  a  whole  day 
was  thus  given  to  the  Speaker  for  the  selection  of  the  committees. 

The  Speaker  said,  that  it  had  been  the  practice,  at  the 
opening  of  a  new  Congress,  to  allow  the  Speaker  three  or  four 
days  for  the  selection  of  the  committees. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  should  not  have  moved  to  postpone 
the  motion  for  now  appointing  them,  if  he  had  not  known  that 
to  be  the  fact. 

Mr.  Mallary  said,  that,  should  the  order  be  now  made, 
it  would,  he  presumed,  not  necessarily  follow  that  the  committees 
should  be  announced  to-morrow. 

The  Speaker  said,  that,  if  the  order  was  now  made,  the 
committees  must  be  announced  to-morrow. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  if  the  pending  motion  was  laid  upon  the 
table  until  to-morrow,  and  should  then  be  adopted,  the  House 


1  Register  of  Debates,  21  Cong,  i  Sess.  1829-1830,  VI.,  part  1,  p.  47a, 


420  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

might  then,  following  precedent,  adjourn  over  to  Monday,  and 
thus  afford  the  Speaker  the  requisite  time  of  three  or  four  days 
for  a  selection  of  the  committees. 


REMARKS,  DECEMBER  15,  1829, 

ON  THE  PRINTING  OF   THE  ANNUAL   REPORT  OF  THE 
SECRETARY  OF   THE    TREASURY.1 

The  Speaker  laid  before  the  House  a  letter  from  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  transmitting  his  annual  report  upon  the 
state  of  the  finances. 

The  report  having  been  announced  from  the  Chair, 

Mr.  Buchanan  moved  that  ten  thousand  copies  of  the  re- 
port, and  the  documents  accompanying  it,  be  printed. 

Mr.  Whittlesey  proposed  six  thousand  copies,  being  the 
largest  number  ever  printed  of  a  public  document  before  this 
session. 

Mr.  Buchanan  said  that  the  Annual  Report  from  the  Treas- 
ury Department  was  always  looked  to  with  great  interest  by 
the  people ;  that  it  was  too  voluminous  to  find  admission  at  large 
into  the  newspapers;  that  its  general  circulation  was  very  desir- 
able, &c.  Ten  thousand  copies  had  been  ordered  to  be  printed 
of  the  documents  accompanying  the  message  of  the  President; 
and  this  document,  he  presumed,  would  be  considered  of  at  least 
equal  importance. 

********** 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  was  happy  to  find  that  the  gentleman 
from  Ohio  was  now  so  decided  an  advocate  for  retrenchment; 
not  knowing,  however,  that  he  had  ever  found  him  otherwise. 
He  did  not  know  but,  in  pursuit  of  this  object,  he  and  the  gentle- 
man from  Ohio  would  be  found  going  hand  in  hand.  But  this 
[Mr.  B.  said]  was  not  the  point  at  which  they  ought  to  begin 
to  retrench.  Retrenchment  ought  not  to  begin  with  communi- 
cation of  information  of  this  sort  to  the  people,  who  are  more 
interested  in  knowing  exactly  what  has  been  the  management  of 
their  financial  concerns,  than,  perhaps,  in  any  other  subject. 
If  we  are  to  begin  the  work,  [said  Mr.  B.]  let  it  be  with  some- 
thing else,  more  in  accordance  with  the  proper  principles  of 
retrenchment  than  this. 

The  question  was  then  taken  on  printing  the  largest  number 
proposed,  ten  thousand  copies,  and  decided  in  the  affirmative. 


1  Register  of  Debates,  21  Cong,  i  Sess.  1829-1830,  VI.,  part  1,  p.  475. 


1829]  PROCEEDS  OF  LAND  SALES  421 

REMARKS,  DECEMBER  30,  1829, 

ON  THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  PROCEEDS  OF  THE 
SALE  OF  PUBLIC  LANDS.1 

Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  asked  the  gentleman  from 
Tennessee  to  withdraw  this  motion,  (which  by  rule  admits  of 
no  debate,)  to  allow  him  to  make  a  few  observations. 

Mr.  Polk  said  he  would  accommodate  the  gentleman  with 
a  great  deal  of  pleasure,  but  the  very  object  of  his  motion  was 
to  stop  the  debate. 

The  question  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Polk  to  lay  the  resolu- 
tion on  the  table,  was  then  taken  by  yeas  and  nays,  and  was 
decided  as  follows — yeas  J2,  nays  95. 

So  the  House  refused  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Buchanan  then  rose,  and  said,  he  felt  himself  indebted 
to  the  vote  of  the  House,  and  not  to  the  courtesy  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Tennessee,  [Mr.  Polk]  for  the  privilege  of  making 
a  few  observations  on  this  subject.  He  ought  not  perhaps  to 
complain  of  that  gentleman's  course,  because  it  was  sanctioned 
by  the  rules  of  the  House;  yet  he  would  say,  it  was  not  very 
liberal,  after  a  member  had  himself  addressed  the  House  upon 
a  question,  to  conclude  his  remarks  by  making  a  motion,  which, 
if  successful,  would  prevent  all  Others  from  making  any  reply 
to  his  argument. 

The  House  [said  Mr.  B.]  is  placed  in  a  singular  position 
in  regard  to  this  resolution.  The  course  pursued  by  its  friends 
has  been  unfortunate.  Upon  this  resolution,  which  merely  pro- 
poses to  institute  an  inquiry  before  a  committee  of  the  House, 
the  skilful  tactics  of  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  [Mr. 
Martin]  have  involved  us  in  such  a  debate,  as  can  only  become 
proper  in  case  the  committee  should  report  a  bill  for  the  division 
of  the  nett  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  among  the  States  in 
proportion  to  their  population,  and  that  bill  should  be  before  the 
House  for  discussion.  Yet,  in  this  preliminary  stage  of  the 
business,  we  have  been  drawn  off  from  the  main  subject  of  in- 
quiry, and  have  been  seriously  engaged  in  discussing  the  ques- 


1  Register  of  Debates,  21  Cong.  1  Sess.  1829-1830,  VI.,  part  1,  pp.  489- 
490.  The  debate  was  on  a  resolution  to  direct  the  Committee  on  the  Public 
Lands  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  distributing  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  public  lands  among  the  several  States  for  the  purposes  of  education 
and  internal  improvement.  Mr.  Polk,  after  some  remarks,  moved  to  lay  the 
resolution  on  the  table. 


422  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

tion,  whether  the  new  States,  who  have  hitherto  received  dona- 
tions of  public  land  from  this  Government,  shall  account  for 
them  in  the  general  distribution.  The  gentleman  from  South 
Carolina,  who  proposed  this  amendment,  has  frankly  avowed, 
that,  whether  it  prevailed  or  not,  he  would  vote  against  the 
resolution.  Such  is  my  regard  for  that  gentleman,  and  of 
such  value  do  I  estimate  his  support,  that  I  might  be  willing  to 
sacrifice  something  of  my  own  opinion  to  secure  it;  but  when 
he  proposes  to  amend  our  resolution,  and  informs  us,  at  the  same 
time,  he  will  oppose  it  in  every  shape,  we  ought  to  view  his 
amendment  with  jealousy  and  distrust. 

"  Timeo  Danaos,  et  dona  ferentes." 

Without  being  drawn  into  an  argument  upon  the  subject, 
it  is  my  decided  opinion  that  it  would  be  both  unjust  and  ungen- 
erous to  charge  the  new  States  with  donations  of  land  which 
they  have  already  received,  and  that  an  inquiry  into  the  expedi- 
ency of  such  a  measure  could  only  tend  to  distract  and  divide 
the  friends  of  the  resolution. 

What  [said  Mr.  B.]  is  the  true  and  the  only  proper  ques- 
tion for  discussion  at  this  time?  It  is,  whether  the  subject  of  the 
resolution  is  of  sufficient  importance  to  demand  inquiry.  Upon 
this  question  can  a  doubt  be  entertained?  The  vast  importance 
of  the  measure  proposed  must  be  impressed  upon  every  mind, 
whether  we  regard  its  consequences  to  the  people  of  the  old 
or  of  the  new  States  of  this  Union.  The  public  feeling  of  the 
country  is  alive  to  the  subject.  And  shall  such  of  us  as  are 
friendly  to  its  thorough  investigation  suffer  inquiry  to  be  stifled  ? 
I  trust  not. 

The  report  of  the  select  committee  of  the  House,  at  the  last 
session  of  Congress,  has  furnished  us  all  the  statistical  informa- 
tion upon  the  subject  which  can  be  desired.  There  are  two 
important  questions  which  that  report  does  not  embrace,  and 
which  ought  to  be  carefully  investigated  by  a  committee  of  this 
House.  I  desire  to  have  a  report  from  such  a  committee,  upon 
the  question  whether  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  are  pledged 
in  such  a  manner  to  the  public  creditors,  that,  without  violating 
our  faith,  we  cannot  distribute  them  among  the  States  until  after 
the  total  extinguishment  of  the  national  debt.  In  the  course 
of  the  debate,  the  affirmative  of  this  proposition  has  been  stated 
with  a  degree  of  confidence  which  would  almost  seem  to  pre- 
clude doubt;  and  yet  there  are  probably  strong  reasons  to  sus- 
tain a  contrary  opinion. 


1829]  PROCEEDS  OF  LAND  SALES  423 

It  is  very  true,  that,  when  the  funding  system  was  first 
established  in  1790,  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands 
were  directed  to  be  applied  solely  to  the  extinguishment  of  the 
debt  of  the  Revolution ;  but  it  is  equally  certain  that  this  pledge 
was  often  disregarded.  In  the  year  181 7,  when  the  present 
sinking  fund  was  established,  all  previous  laws  which  had  made 
appropriations  for  the  purchase  or  payment  of  the  funded  debt 
were  repealed.  That  fund  of  ten  millions  of  dollars  annually, 
for  the  discharge  of  the  public  debt,  was  to  be  raised  from  the 
import  and  tonnage  duties,  from  the  internal  duties,  and  from 
the  sales  of  Western  lands.  It  may  be  [said  Mr.  B.]  that  the 
obligation  imposed  by  this  act  will  be  equally  satisfied,  whether 
the  annual  sinking  fund  shall  be  provided  from  one  or  from  all 
these  sources.  Such  was  probably  the  opinion  of  Congress, 
when,  in  less  than  one  year  after  they  had  created  this  fund, 
they  abolished  all  the  internal  duties,  and  thus  cut  off  one  of 
the  sources  from  which  it  was  to  be  supplied.  I  wish  to  express 
no  decided  opinion  upon  this  question;  but  it  is  certainly  well 
worthy  of  investigation  by  a  committee.  Its  proper  under- 
standing and  correct  decision  may  aid  us  much  in  arriving  at 
a  just  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  main  question. 

Mr.  B.  wished  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  even  if  we 
could,  consistently  with  the  public  faith,  at  once  distribute  the 
annual  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  among  the  States,  he  had 
not  for  himself  determined  whether  it  would  be  expedient  to  do 
so  until  after  the  national  debt  should  be  discharged. 

There  is  [said  Mr.  B.]  another  important  question  involved 
in  this  inquiry,  on  which  I  desire  to  have  the  report  of  a  com- 
mittee; and  that  is  in  regard  to  the  constitutional  power  of 
Congress  to  make  the  proposed  distribution  among  the  States. 
The  power  to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  among 
the  States  to  which  they  now  belong,  is,  in  my  opinion,  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  of  distributing  among  them  the  surplus  revenue 
arising  from  taxation.  I  purposely  refrain  from  entering  upon 
the  discussion  of  this  question  at  present;  but  I  think  I  might 
appeal  with  confidence  to  the  gentleman  from  South  Caro- 
lina, [Mr.  Martin]  whether  there  is  not  an  obvious  distinction 
between  the  two  cases.  A  gentleman  might,  with  perfect  con- 
sistency, admit  the  power  of  Congress  in  the  one  case,  and  deny 
it  in  the  other. 

Mr.  B.  said  he  thought  this  resolution  ought  not  to  be 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  as  the  mover 


424  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1829 

of  it  [Mr.  Hunt]  had  proposed.  Highly  as  he  respected  that 
committee,  it  was  well  known  they  were  chiefly  selected  from 
the  members  representing  that  portion  of  the  Union  within  which 
the  public  lands  were  situated,  and  who  were  therefore  best 
acquainted  with  the  laws  which  related  to  them.  The  subject 
proposed  to  be  referred  was  one  of  deep  and  general  interest 
to  every  State.  In  his  opinion,  a  select  committee,  composed 
of  members  from  different  portions  of  the  Union,  should  be 
raised  for  the  purpose  of  investigating  it.  The  subject  involved 
important  questions  in  regard  to  the  construction  of  the  con- 
stitution and  of  the  laws  of  the  country,  which  did  not  appro- 
priately refer  themselves  to  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands ; 
and  the  information  peculiarly  within  the  province  of  that  com- 
mittee, we  have  already  received  from  the  report  of  the  select 
committee  raised  at  the  last  session. 

Mr.  B.  said  he  thought  the  present  the  peculiar  and  the 
appropriate  time  for  inquiry.  The  country  were  expecting,  nay, 
they  were  demanding  it.  Are  we  prepared  to  stifle  this  inquiry? 
Are  we  prepared  to  declare  that  we  do  not  think  this  important 
subject  even  worthy  of  a  reference?  Such,  he  trusted,  would 
never  be  the  determination  of  the  House ;  and  he  was  convinced 
the  friends  of  inquiry  would  never  be  diverted  from  their  pur- 
pose, until  they  had  obtained  all  the  information  necessary  to 
enable  them  to  act  with  wisdom. 

Mr.  B.  said  he  would  read  a  substitute  for  the  resolution 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Vermont,  [Mr.  Hunt]  which 
was  in  accordance  with  the  remarks  he  had  just  made.  He 
trusted  it  would  be  acceptable  to  that  gentleman.  He  knew  that, 
under  the  rules  of  the  House,  he  could  not  at  present  offer  it 
as  an  amendment;  and  if  he  could,  he  would  not,  because  his 
time  was  already  too  much  occupied  on  the  committee  of  which 
he  was  already  a  member,  to  make  him  desire  to  be  placed  on  the 
select  committee  to  which  this  subject  ought  in  his  opinion  to  be 
referred. 

Here  Mr.  B.  concluded  by  reading  the  following: 

Resolved,  That  a  select  committee  be  appointed,  to  which  shall  be 
referred  the  report  of  a  select  committee  made  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives the  25th  February  last,  relating  to  the  distribution  of  the  nett  proceeds 
of  the  sale  of  public  lands  among  the  several  States,  in  proportion  to  the 
population  of  each;  and  that  the  said  committee  be  instructed  to  inquire,  and 
report  to  this  House,  whether  there  be  any  provision  of  the  constitution,  or 
of  any  act  or  acts  of  Congress,  in  relation  to  the  discharge  of  the  public 
debt,  which  ought  to  prevent  Congress  from  making  such  distribution,  and 
that  the  said  committee  have  leave  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise. 


1830]  ALLOWANCES  TO  JURORS  425 

1830. 
REPORT,  JANUARY  4,  1830, 

ON  THE  CASE  OF  JAMES  LINSEY.i 

January  4,  1830,  Mr.  Buchanan,  from  the  Committee  on 
the  Judiciary,  made  to  the  House  the  following  report : 

The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  which  was  referred  the 
petition  of  James  Linsey,  report: 

That  at  the  last  session  of  Congress,  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary  made  a  report  against  the  claim  of  the  petitioner. 
His  petition  and  documents  have  been  again  presented,  and  the 
Committee  have  again  examined  them,  and,  without  entering 
into  particulars,  they  are  of  opinion  that  the  claim  is  wholly 
without  foundation :  if  allowed,  it  could  only  be  upon  the  mon- 
strous principle,  that  the  United  States,  by  selling  the  lands  of 
an  individual,  for  the  payment  of  his  direct  tax,  became  a  war- 
rantor to  the  purchaser,  and  his  heirs  and  assigns,  for  the  valid- 
ity of  the  title.  The  committee,  therefore,  offer  the  following 
Resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  prayer  of  the  petitioner  ought  not  to  be  granted. 


REPORT,  JANUARY  4,  1830, 

ON  ALLOWANCES  TO  JURORS.2 

January  4,  1830,  Mr.  Buchanan,  from  the  Committee  on 
the  Judiciary,  submitted  to  the  House  the  following  report : 

The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  which  was  referred 
a  resolution  of  the  House,  instructing  them  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  increasing  the  allowance  for  travel  and  attendance 
of  the  jurors  of  the  Circuit  and  District  Courts  of  the  United 
States,  report  the  following 

RESOLUTION  ! 

Resolved,  That  it  is  not  expedient  to  make  the  provision  proposed  in  the 
foregoing  resolution. 


1  House  Reports,  No.  48,  21  Cong.  1  Sess. 

2  House  Reports,  No.  49,  21  Cong.  1  Sess. 


426  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

REPORT,  JANUARY  4,  1830, 

ON  APPEALS  AND  WRITS  OF   ERROR.1 

January  4,  1830,  Mr.  Buchanan  presented  to  the  House 
the  following  report: 

The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  which  was  referred  a 
resolution  of  the  House,  instructing  them  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  providing  by  law,  that  all  Appeals,  and  Writs 
of  Error,  from  the  Southern  Judicial  District,  in  Florida,  in 
Admiralty  and  Maritime  cases,  shall  be  taken  and  prosecuted 
from  said  Court,  directly  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  report: 

That  the  Appellate  Court,  for  the  Southern  Judicial  District 
of  Florida,  is  composed  of  the  Judges  of  the  three  Judicial  Dis- 
tricts, into  which  that  Territory  was  divided,  by  the  act  of  the 
26th  May,  1824.  From  the  decisions  of  this  Appellate  Court, 
writs  of  error  and  appeals  may  be  taken  to  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  if  the  amount  in  controversy  exceed  one 
thousand  dollars.  The  committee  cannot  perceive  any  ade- 
quate reason  for  changing  this  provision,  and  allowing  a  direct 
appeal  in  Admiralty  and  Maritime  cases,  from  the  Court  for  the 
Southern  Judicial  District  of  Florida,  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States. 

It  is  true,  that  many  causes  of  admiralty  and  maritime  juris- 
diction, and  some  of  these  of  large  amount,  are  decided  by  the 
Courts  of  the  Southern  District  of  Florida;  but  if  this  were  a 
sufficient  reason  for  allowing  an  immediate  appeal  from  that 
Court,  to  the  Supreme  Court,  it  would  apply  with  equal  force  to 
cases  of  a  similar  nature,  decided  by  the  District  Courts  of  the 
United  States;  from  whose  decrees,  in  such  causes,  an  appeal 
is  now  allowed,  in  the  first  instance,  to  the  Circuit  Courts.  If 
the  law  were  thus  changed,  the  consequence  would  be  a  great 
increase  of  the  business  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  is  already 
so  onerous  that  it  can  scarcely  be  transacted,  without  interfering 
with  the  terms  of  the  Circuit  Courts.  Your  committee  therefore 
recommend  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  provide  by  law  that  all  Appeals  and 
Writs  of  Error  from  the  Southern  Judicial  District,  in  Florida,  in  Admiralty 
and  Maritime  cases,  shall  be  taken  and  prosecuted  from  said  Court,  directly 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 


1  House  Reports,  No.  50,  21  Cong.  1  Sess. 


1830]  CASE  OF  MANUEL  DEL  BARCO  427 

REPORT,   JANUARY   4,    1830, 

ON  THE  CASE  OF  MANUEL  DEL  BARCO.1 

January  4,  1830,  Mr.  Buchanan  presented  to  the  House  the 
following  report: 

The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  which  was  referred 
the  memorial  of  Manuel  del  Barco,  report: 

That  the  memorialist  represents  himself  to  be  a  resident 
of  Pensacola,  and  to  have  become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States, 
by  the  cession  of  Florida.  That,  on  the  invasion  or  occupation 
of  Pensacola  by  the  British  forces,  in  the  year  18 14,  a  negro  man 
slave,  named  Henry,  then  about  fourteen  years  of  age,  was  car- 
ried off  to  the  Appalaehicola,  thence  went  among  the  Creek 
Indians,  and  from  Tampa  bay  was  carried  by  a  fishing  vessel 
to  Havana,  where  he  was  recovered  by  the  memorialist,  and  has 
been  ever  since  in  his  possession.  The  memorialist  further  rep- 
resents, that  he  is  unwilling  to  sell  the  said  negro,  who  is  desir- 
ous to  return  to  this  country,  where  his  relations  still  live, 
and,  therefore,  prays  that  a  law  may  be  passed  allowing  him 
to  bring  home  his  said  negro. 

A  general  affidavit  of  two  witnesses  to  the  truth  of  these 
facts,  is  annexed  to  the  memorial ;  and,  also,  that  the  said  negro 
Henry  is  the  slave  of  the  memorialist,  and  is  at  present  in  the 
city  of  Havana. 

Your  committee,  without  waiting  to  inquire  whether  this 
affidavit  be  sufficient  to  establish  the  facts  stated  in  the  memor- 
ial, are  of  opinion,  that,  admitting  them  to  be  true,  such  a  case 
is  not  presented  as  would  justify  Congress  in  relaxing  the  laws 
prohibiting  the  slave  trade.  Such  a  measure,  if  justifiable  in  any 
case,  ought  never  to  be  adopted,  unless  upon  weighty  and  urgent 
reasons.  In  this  case,  the  slave  had  been  carried  away  from 
his  master,  whilst  Florida  was  a  Spanish  province,  and  seven 
years  before  its  cession  to  the  United  States.  At  any  time, 
during  this  period,  the  memorialist  might  have  brought 
his  slave  from  Havana  to  Pensacola,  if  he  had  thought  proper. 
But  now,  for  the  first  time,  eight  years  after  Florida  has  be- 
come a  territory  of  the  United  States,  and  fifteen  years  after 
his  slave  was  carried  away,  the  petitioner  applies  for  permission 
to  import  him  from  Havana  to  Pensacola.  If  this  were  allowed, 
it  would  establish  a  precedent,   under  the  authority  of  which 


1  House  Reports,  No.  51,  21  Cong.  1  Sess. 


428  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

many  frauds  might  be  committed,  and  the  laws  prohibiting  the 
importation  of  slaves  might  be  evaded.  Your  committee  there- 
fore offer  the  following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  the  prayer  of  the  petitioner  ought  not  to  be  granted. 


REPORT,  JANUARY  13,  1830, 

ON  THE  LOBSTER  FISHERY.1 

January  13,  1830,  Mr.  Buchanan  submitted  to  the  House 
the  following  report: 

The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  to  which  was  referred  the 
memorial  of  sundry  citizens  of  the  United  States,  engaged  in  the 
lobster  fishery  on  the  coast  of  Massachusetts,  complaining  that 
certain  Acts  of  the  Legislature  of  that  State  infringed  their 
rights,  under  the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  the  United  States, 
report : 

That,  from  the  view  which  your  Committee  have  taken 
of  the  subject,  it  is  unnecessary  they  should  make  a  particular 
statement  of  the  case.  The  question  presented  by  the  memorial 
is  one  of  great  importance,  involving  the  power  of  a  sovereign 
State  of  this  Union  to  regulate  the  fisheries  along  its  own 
coasts,  to  the  extent  of  one  mile  into  the  ocean ;  but  it  is  clearly 
a  question  for  judicial  decision,  not  for  Legislative  enactment. 
If  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  has  been  deprived  of  any 
right  which  belongs  to  him  under  the  Constitution  and  Laws 
of  the  United  States,  the  courts  of  justice  are  open  to  him,  and 
have  ample  power  to  afford  him  redress.  Your  Committee, 
therefore,  believe,  that,  upon  such  a  subject,  it  would  be  an 
improper  interference  with  the  Judicial  department  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, for  this  House  even  to  express  an  opinion;  much  less 
to  enact  a  law  such  as  the  memorialists  request,  in  effect  declar- 
ing that  the  Acts  of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  are  in  vio- 
lation of  the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  the  United  States,  and 
are  therefore  void.  Your  Committee,  therefore,  report  the 
following  resolution : 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  grant  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners. 


House  Reports,  No.  79,  21  Cong.  1  Sess. 


1830]  SPEECH  ON  THE  JUDICIARY  429 

SPEECH,  JANUARY  14,  1830, 

ON  THE  JUDICIARY.1 

The  bill  establishing  Circuit  Courts  and  abridging  the  juris- 
diction of  the  District  Courts  in  the  districts  of  Indiana,  Illinois, 
Missouri,  Mississippi,  the  eastern  district  of  Louisiana,  and  the 
southern  district  of  Alabama,  being  under  consideration, 

Mr.   Buchanan  rose,   and  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  It  becomes  my  duty  to  present  to  this 
committee  the  reasons  which  induced  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary  to  report  the  bill  to  the  House  which  has  just  been 
read.  In  rising  to  discharge  this  duty,  I  feel  conscious  that  the 
subject  is  in  its  nature  dry  and  uninteresting;  but  its  importance 
demands  the  attention  of  every  member  of  this  committee.  In 
vain  may  we  pass  the  most  wise  and  salutary  laws,  unless  we 
provide  an  efficient  judiciary  to  carry  their  blessings  and  their 
benefits  home  to  the  people.  Without  such  a  judiciary,  they 
remain  a  dead  letter  upon  our  statute  book. 

This  bill  proposes  no  new  theory — no  untried  experiment. 
It  pursues  the  course  which  has  been  sanctioned  by  long  experi- 
ence. The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  did  not  seek  to  be  wiser 
than  those  who  have  gone  before  us.  This  bill,  therefore,  pro- 
vides nothing  new  for  the  old  States  of  the  Union.  It  merely 
extends  to  the  new  Western  States  that  judicial  system  which 
has  been  found  to  be  fully  adequate  to  administer  justice  to  all 
the  States  east  of  the  Alleghany. 

Before  I  proceed  to  illustrate  the  necessity  of  this  measure, 
it  is  perhaps  proper  that  I  should  briefly  present  to  the  commit- 
tee some  of  the  prominent  points  of  the  judicial  history  of  the 
United  States.  Our  present  system  was  called  into  existence 
by  the  judicial  act  of  September,  1789;  and  it  demonstrates  the 
wisdom  and  sagacity  of  the  Congress  of  that  day,  that  they 
should,  at  the  very  first  attempt,  have  adopted  a  system,  which, 
with  but  few  alterations,  has  stood  the  test  of  an  experience  of 
forty  years.  Under  that  act,  the  United  States  was  divided 
into  thirteen  districts,  for  each  of  which  a  district  judge  was 
appointed,  who  was  required  to  reside  therein,  and  to  hold  a 
court  to  be  called  a  district  court.  These  district  courts  were 
entirely  independent  of  each   other.     Eleven   of  these  thirteen 


Register  of  Debates,  21  Cong.  1  Sess.  1829-1830,  VI.,  part  1,  pp.  530- 
537- 


430  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

districts,  consisting  of  the  eleven  States  which  were  then  mem- 
bers of  the  Union,  were  divided  into  three  circuits.  These 
were  called  the  eastern,  the  middle,  and  the  southern  circuits. 
The  eastern  circuit  was  composed  of  the  States  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  New  York;  the  middle, 
of  the  States  of  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Mary- 
land, and  Virginia;  and  the  southern,  of  the  States  of  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia.  The  remaining  districts  of  Maine  and 
Kentucky,  not  then  members  of  the  Union,  were  not  embraced 
in  any  circuit;  but  their  district  courts  were  invested  with  the 
powers  of  a  circuit  court. 

Under  this  act,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
consisted  of  a  chief  justice  and  five  associate  justices. 

In  each  district  of  these  three  circuits,  a  circuit  court  was 
directed  to  be  held  twice  in  each  year,  to  be  composed  of  any 
two  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  judge  of  the  district. 

In  June,  1790,  the  States  of  Rhode  Island  and  North  Caro- 
lina, and  in  March,  1791,  that  of  Vermont,  came  into  the  Union. 
The  districts  of  Rhode  Island  and  Vermont  were  attached  to  the 
eastern,  and  that  of  North  Carolina  to  the  southern  circuit. 

The  committee  will  observe,  that  the  act  of  1789  did  not 
assign  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  particular  circuits, 
but  intended  that  they  should  alternate  in  holding  their  circuit 
courts.  It  was  soon  found  to  be  impracticable  for  them  to  per- 
form the  circuit  duties  required  by  this  act.  Under  its  opera- 
tion, the  six  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  besides  the  perform- 
ance of  their  duties  in  bank,  were  required,  in  pairs,  to  hold 
circuit  courts  twice  in  each  year,  throughout  the  three  circuits 
which  embraced  all  the  States  of  the  Union.  In  1792,  they 
addressed  the  President  of  the  United  States  upon  the  subject, 
who  laid  their  communication  before  Congress.  This  produced 
the  act  of  March,  1793,  which  declared  that  any  one  of  the  jus- 
tices of  the  Supreme  Court,  with  the  judge  of  the  district,  should 
compose  the  circuit  court.  This  act,  by  dividing  their  duties, 
diminished  their  circuit  labors  one  half,  and  enabled  them,  with- 
out difficulty,  to  attend  all  the  circuit  courts. 

Thus  the  Judiciary  of  the  United  States  continued  to  be 
organized  until  the  passage  of  the  famous  act  of  February  1801. 
This  act  produced  great  excitement  throughout  the  country  at 
the  time  of  its  passage,  and  met  with  strong  public  disappro- 
bation. It  withdrew  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  from  the 
performance  of  circuit  duties,   and  made  them   exclusively  an 


1830]  SPEECH  ON  THE  JUDICIARY  431 

appellate  tribunal.  Under  its  provisions,  the  United  States  were 
divided  into  six  circuits,  and  three  judges  were  appointed  for 
each  of  the  first  five  of  these  circuits.  For  the  sixth  circuit, 
which  consisted  of  the  districts  of  East  and  West  Tennessee, 
Kentucky,  and  Ohio,  only  one  circuit  judge  was  appointed ;  who, 
together  with  the  district  judges  of  Tennessee  and  Kentucky, 
composed  the  court  for  that  circuit.  The  district  courts 
throughout  this  circuit  were  abolished,  and  their  duties  were 
transferred  to  the  circuit  court.  Such  was  the  provision  which 
this  act  made  for  the  performance  of  these  circuit  duties,  which 
had  been  ably  and  satisfactorily  discharged  by  the  six  justices 
of  the  Supreme  Court  previous  to  its  passage. 

The  act  of  1801  had  but  a  brief  existence.  It  was  swept 
from  the  statute  book  in  little  more  than  one  year  after  it  be- 
came a  law,  by  the  repealing  act  of  March,  1802.  All  the 
judges  created  under  it  were  thus  legislated  out  of  office.  This 
has  been  called  a  high-handed  proceeding,  and  it  is  one  which 
ought  never  to  be  resorted  to  except  in  extreme  cases ;  but  yet,  in 
my  opinion,  experience  has  justified  the  measure,  and  has  proved 
that  such  an  extreme  case  then  existed.  But  more  of  this 
hereafter. 

In  April,  1802,  the  judicial  system  was  re-organized,  and 
placed  upon  the  foundation  on  which  it  now  rests.  The  old 
thirteen  States,  together  with  Vermont,  were  divided  into  six 
circuits,  the  first  composed  of  the  States  of  New  Hampshire, 
Massachusetts,  and  Rhode  Island;  the  second,  of  the  States  of 
Connecticut,  New  York,  and  Vermont;  the  third,  of  New  Jer- 
sey and  Pennsylvania;  the  fourth,  of  Maryland  and  Delaware; 
the  fifth,  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina ;  and  the  sixth,  of  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia.  These  circuits  have  ever  since  continued 
the  same,  except  that  Maine,  since  its  admission  into  the  Union, 
has  been  annexed  to  the  first  circuit.  This  act  was  the  first 
which  assigned  to  each  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  a  particular 
circuit.  From  the  passage  of  the  judicial  act  of  1789,  until 
that  of  April,  1802,  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  alternated 
and  travelled  over  all  the  circuits.  Since  that  time,  each  one 
of  them  has  been  confined  to  a  single  circuit.  The  act  of  1802 
proceeded  still  further,  and  recognized  the  principle  that  the 
justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  ought  to  reside  within  their  re- 
spective circuits.  At  the  date  of  its  passage,  four  of  the  jus- 
tices resided  within  the  circuits  to  which  it  assigned  them.  Upon 
the  resignation  of  Mr.  Justice  Moore  in  1804,  whose  residence 


432  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

was  in  the  fifth,  but  who  was  assigned  to  the  sixth  circuit,  the 
present  Mr.  Justice  Johnston  was  appointed  his  successor.  Ever 
since  that  time,  all  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  have  re- 
sided within  their  respective  circuits,  except  the  late  Judge 
Washington.  And  of  that  lamented  judge,  permit  me  to  say, 
that  although  he  was  the  citizen  of  a  State  out  of  the  limits  of  his 
circuit,  yet  his  judicial  character  was  held  in  as  high  estimation 
by  the  people  of  Pennsylvania,  as  will  be  that  of  any  man  who 
shall  probably  ever  become  his  successor. 

Kentucky,  which  became  a  State  of  the  Union  in  1792,  and 
Tennessee  in  1796,  were  not  embraced  within  the  circuits  created 
by  the  act  of  1802.  Each  of  them  continued  to  have  a  district 
court,  which,  in  addition  to  the  ordinary  powers  of  such  a 
court,  was  invested  with  the  jurisdiction  of  a  circuit  court. 
Ohio  became  a  member  of  the  Union  in  1802;  and,  in  February, 
1807,  Congress  established  a  seventh  circuit,  to  consist  of  the 
States  of  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  Ohio.  Under  this  act,  a 
sixth  associate  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  appointed,  to 
reside  within  the  seventh  circuit,  and  to  hold  the  circuit  courts. 
This  circuit  has  always  been  too  extensive,  and  the  duties  of  the 
judge  have  ever  been  too  laborious  to  be  performed  by  any  one 
man. 

After  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1807,  each  of  the  eighteen 
States  which  then  composed  the  Federal  Union,  were  provided 
with  a  circuit  court.  That  act,  in  this  respect,  placed  them  ail 
upon  an  equal  footing. 

Since  the  year  1807,  Slx  new  States  have  been  added  to 
the  Union:  Louisiana,  in  181 2;  Indiana,  in  181 6;  Mississippi, 
in  181 7;  Illinois,  in  18 18;  Alabama,  in  1819;  and  Missouri,  in 
1821. 

The  purpose  of  this  bill  is  to  extend  the  circuit  court  system 
to  these  new  States ;  and,  in  doing  so,  to  make  such  an  arrange- 
ment of  the  two  new  circuits  which  it  proposes  to  establish,  as 
will  enable  the  courts  to  transact  the  business  of  the  States  of 
Ohio,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee. 

Before  I  proceed  to  discuss  the  merits  of  this  bill,  it  is  neces- 
sary, to  a  correct  understanding  of  the  subject,  that  I  should 
present  to  the  committee  the  great  outlines  of  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  circuit  courts  of  the  United  States.  I  need  scarcely  re- 
peat, that  they  are  composed  of  one  of  the  justices  of  the 
Supreme  Court  and  the  judge  of  the  district  in  which  they  are 
held.     They  do  not  possess  original   jurisdiction   in   any  case, 


1830]  SPEECH  ON  THE  JUDICIARY  433 

unless  the  sum  in  controversy  exceeds  five  hundred  dollars. 
Above  that  amount  they  have  unlimited  original  cognizance, 
concurrent  with  the  courts  of  the  several  States,  of  all  suits  of 
a  civil  nature,  at  common  law  or  in  equity,  in  which  the  United 
States  are  plaintiffs,  or  in  which  an  alien  is  one  party,  and  the 
citizen  of  the  State  the  other;  or  in  which  the  controversy 
is  between  a  citizen  of  the  State  where  the  suit  is  brought,  and 
a  citizen  of  another  State.  If  an  alien  be  sued  in  a  State  court 
by  any  State  or  the  citizen  of  a  State,  or  if  the  citizen  of  an- 
other State  be  sued  in  a  State  court  by  a  citizen  of  the  State  in 
which  the  suit  is  brought,  the  defendant  in  either  case  may 
remove  the  cause  into  the  circuit  court  of  the  United  States. 
The  jurisdiction  of  the  circuit  court  also  extends  to  controversies 
between  citizens  of  the  same  State,  claiming  lands  under  grants 
of  different  States;  and  causes  of  this  nature  may  be  removed 
by  either  party  from  the  courts  of  the  States  into  the  circuit 
court.  Besides  this  extended  original  jurisdiction,  the  circuit 
courts  are  courts  of  appeal,  in  which  the  judgments  and  decrees 
of  the  district  courts  may  be  reviewed,  in  all  civil  cases  in  which 
the  sum  in  controversy  exceeds  fifty  dollars.  When  we  consider 
that  the  district  courts  "  have  exclusive  original  cognizance  of 
all  civil  causes  of  admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdiction,"  this 
single  branch  of  their  power  must  be  the  fruitful  source  of  many 
appeals  to  the  circuit  courts. 

The  judgments  or  decrees  of  the  circuit  courts  are  final  and 
conclusive  in  all  cases  in  which  the  amount  in  controversy  does 
not  exceed  two  thousand  dollars,  unless  when  the  two  judges  who 
compose  them  are  divided  in  opinion  upon  some  point  which  may 
have  arisen  during  the  trial. 

The  circuit  courts  also  possess  exclusive  original  jurisdiction 
of  all  crimes  of  an  aggravated  nature  committed  against  the 
United  States;  and  they  have  concurrent  jurisdiction  with  the 
district  courts  of  all  other  offences.  Their  judgments  in  all  crim- 
inal cases  are  conclusive,  unless  the  judges  are  divided  in  opinion. 
If  there  has  been  such  a  division  between  them,  either  in  a  civil 
or  criminal  case,  the  point  of  disagreement  may  be  certified  to  the 
next  Supreme  Court  for  a  final  decision. 

Having  thus  given  a  hasty  sketch  of  the  history  of  the 
Judiciary  of  the  United  States,  and  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  cir- 
cuit courts  which  this  bill  proposes  to  extend  to  the  six  new 
States  of  the  Union,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  present  the  views 
of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  in  relation  to  this  important 

28 


434  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

subject.  In  doing  this,  I  feel  that,  before  I  can  expect  the  passage 
of  the  bill,  I  must  satisfy  the  committee,  first,  that  such  a  change 
or  modification  of  the  present  judiciary  system  ought  to  be 
adopted,  as  will  place  the  Western  States  on  an  equal  footing 
with  the  other  States  of  the  Union ;  and,  second,  that  the  present 
bill  contains  the  best  provisions,  which,  under  all  the  circum- 
stances, can  be  devised  for  accomplishing  this  purpose. 

And  first,  in  regard  to  the  States  of  Ohio,  Kentucky,  and 
Tennessee.  It  may  be  said  that  the  existing  law  has  already 
established  circuit  courts  in  these  three  States,  and  why  then 
should  they  complain  ?  In  answer  to  this  question,  I  ask  gentle- 
men to  look  at  a  map  of  the  United  States,  and  examine  the  extent 
of  this  circuit.  The  distance  which  the  judge  is  compelled  to 
travel,  by  land,  for  the  purpose  of  attending  the  different  circuit 
courts,  is,  of  itself,  almost  sufficient,  in  a  few  years,  to  destroy 
any  common  constitution.  From  Columbus,  in  Ohio,  he  proceeds 
to  Frankfort,  in  Kentucky;  from  Frankfort  to  Nashville;  and 
from  Nashville,  across  the  Cumberland  mountain,  to  Knoxville. 
When  we  reflect  that,  in  addition  to  his  attendance  of  the  courts 
in  each  of  these  States,  twice  in  the  year,  he  is  obliged  annually 
to  attend  the  Supreme  Court  in  Washington,  we  must  all  admit 
that  his  labors  are  very  severe. 

This  circuit  is  not  only  too  extensive,  but  there  is  a  great 
press  of  judicial  business  in  each  of  the  States  of  which  it  is 
composed.  In  addition  to  the  ordinary  sources  of  litigation  for 
the  circuit  courts  throughout  the  Union,  particular  causes  have 
existed  for  its  extraordinary  accumulation  in  each  of  these  States. 
It  will  be  recollected  that,  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of 
the  United  States,  the  circuit  courts  may  try  land  causes  between 
citizens  of  the  same  State,  provided  they  claim  under  grants  from 
different  States.  In  Tennessee,  grants  under  that  State  and  the 
State  of  North  Carolina,  for  the  same  land,  often  come  into  con- 
flict in  the  circuit  court.  The  interfering  grants  of  Virginia  and 
Kentucky  are  a  fruitful  source  of  business  for  the  circuit  court 
of  Kentucky.  These  causes,  from  their  very  nature,  are  difficult 
and  important,  and  must  occupy  much  time  and  attention.  With- 
in the  Virginia  military  district  of  Ohio,  there  are  also  many 
disputed  land  titles. 

Another  cause  has  contributed  much  to  swell  the  business 
of  the  circuit  court  of  Kentucky.  The  want  of  confidence  of  the 
citizens  of  other  States  in  the  judicial  tribunals  of  that  State, 
has  greatly  added  to  the  number  of  suits  in  the  circuit  court. 


1830]  SPEECH  ON  THE  JUDICIARY  435 

Many  plaintiffs,  who  could,  with  greater  expedition,  have  recov- 
ered their  demands  in  the  courts  of  the  State,  were  compelled, 
by  the  impolitic  acts  of  the  State  Legislature,  to  resort  to  the 
courts  of  the  United  States.  Whilst  these  laws  were  enforced 
by  the  State  courts,  they  were  disregarded  by  those  of  the  Union. 
In  making  these  remarks,  I  am  confident  no  representative  from 
that  patriotic  State  will  mistake  my  meaning.  I  rejoice  that  the 
difficulties  are  now  at  an  end,  and  that  the  people  of  Kentucky 
have  discovered  the  ruinous  policy  of  interposing  the  arm  of  the 
law  to  shield  a  debtor  from  the  just  demands  of  his  creditor. 
That  gallant  and  chivalrous  people,  who  possess  a  finer  soil  and 
a  finer  climate  than  any  other  State  of  the  Union,  will  now,  I 
trust,  improve  and  enjoy  the  bounties  which  nature  has  bestowed 
upon  them  with  a  lavish  hand.  As  their  experience  has  been 
severe,  I  trust  their  reformation  will  be  complete.  Still,  how- 
ever, many  of  the  causes  which  originated  in  past  years,  are  yet 
depending  in  the  circuit  court  of  that  State. 

In  1826,  when  a  similar  bill  was  before  this  House,  we  had 
the  most  authentic  information  that  there  were  nine  hundred  and 
fifty  causes  then  pending  in  the  circuit  court  of  Kentucky,  one 
hundred  and  sixty  in  the  circuit  court  for  the  western  district, 
and  about  the  same  number  in  that  for  the  eastern  district  of  Ten- 
nessee, and  upwards  of  two  hundred  in  Ohio.  Upon  that  occa- 
sion, a  memorial  was  presented  from  the  bar  of  Nashville,  signed 
by  G.  W.  Campbell  as  chairman,  and  Felix  Grundy,  at  present 
a  Senator  of  the  United  States,  as  secretary.  These  gentlemen 
are  both  well  known  to  this  House,  and  to  the  country.  That 
memorial  declares  that  "  the  seventh  circuit,  consisting  of  Ken- 
tucky, Ohio,  and  Tennessee,  is  too  large  for  the  duties  of  it  to  be 
devolved  on  one  man;  and  it  was  absolutely  impossible  for  the 
judge  assigned  to  this  circuit  to  fulfil  the  letter  of  the  law  desig- 
nating his  duties."  Such  has  been  the  delay  of  justice  in  the  State 
of  Tennessee,  "  that  some  of  the  important  causes  now  pending 
in  their  circuit  courts  are  older  than  the  professional  career  of 
almost  every  man  at  the  bar." 

The  number  of  causes  depending  in  the  seventh  circuit,  I 
am  informed,  has  been  somewhat  reduced  since  1826;  but  still  the 
evil  is  great,  and  demands  a  remedy.  If  it  were  possible  for  one 
man  to  transact  the  judicial  business  of  that  circuit,  I  should 
have  as  much  confidence  that  it  would  be  accomplished  by  the 
justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  which  it  is  assigned,  as  by  any 
other  judge  in  the  Union.     His  ability  and  his  perseverance  are 


436  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

well  known  to  the  nation.  The  labor,  however,  both  of  body  and 
mind,  is  too  great  for  any  individual. 

Has  not  the  delay  of  justice  in  this  circuit  almost  amounted 
to  its  denial  ?  Are  the  States  which  compose  it  placed  upon  the 
same  footing,  in  this  respect,  with  other  States  of  the  Union? 
Have  they  not  a  right  to  complain?  Many  evils  follow  in  the 
train  of  tardy  justice.  It  deranges  the  whole  business  of  society. 
It  tempts  the  dishonest  and  the  needy  to  set  up  unjust  and  fraudu- 
lent defences  against  the  payment  of  just  debts,  knowing  that  the 
day  of  trial  is  far  distant.  It  thus  ruins  the  honest  creditor,  by 
depriving  him  of  the  funds  which  he  had  a  right  to  expect  at  or 
near  the  appointed  time  of  payment;  and  it  ultimately  tends  to 
destroy  all  confidence  between  man  and  man. 

A  greater  curse  can  scarcely  be  inflicted  upon  the  people 
of  any  State,  than  to  have  their  land  titles  unsettled.  What, 
then,  must  be  the  condition  of  Tennessee,  where  there  are  many 
disputed  land  titles,  when  we  are  informed,  by  undoubted  author- 
ity, "  that  some  of  the  important  causes  now  pending  in  their  cir- 
cuit courts  are  older  than  the  professional  career  of  almost  every 
man  at  the  bar."  Instead  of  being  astonished  at  the  complaints 
of  the  people  of  this  circuit,  I  am  astonished  at  their  forbearance. 
A  judiciary,  able  and  willing  to  compel  men  to  perform  their 
contracts,  and  to  decide  their  controversies,  is  one  of  the  greatest 
political  blessings  which  any  people  can  enjoy ;  and  it  is  one  which 
the  people  of  this  country  have  a  right  to  expect  from  their  Gov- 
ernment. The  present  bill  proposes  to  accomplish  this  object, 
by  creating  a  new  circuit  out  of  the  States  of  Kentucky  and  Ten- 
nessee. This  circuit  will  afford  sufficient  employment  for  one 
justice  of  the  Supreme  Court. 

Without  insisting  further  upon  the  propriety,  nay,  the  neces- 
sity, of  organizing  the  circuit  courts  of  Ohio,  Kentucky,  and  Ten- 
nessee, in  such  a  manner  as  to  enable  them  to  transact  the  business 
of  the  people,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  consider  the  situation  of  the 
six  new  States,  Louisiana,  Indiana,  Mississippi,  Illinois,  Alabama, 
and  Missouri.  Their  grievances  are  of  a  different  character. 
They  do  not  so  much  complain  of  the  delay  of  justice,  as  that 
Congress  has  so  long  refused  to  extend  to  them  the  circuit  court 
system,  as  it  exists  in  all  the  other  States.  As  they  successively 
came  into  the  Union,  they  were  each  provided  with  a  district  court 
and  a  district  judge,  possessing  circuit  court  powers.  The  acts 
which  introduced  them  into  our  political  family  declare  that  they 
shall  "  be  admitted  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the 


1830]  SPEECH  ON  THE  JUDICIARY  437 

original  States,  in  all  respects  whatever."  I  do  not  mean  to  con- 
tend that  by  virtue  of  these  acts  we  were  bound  immediately  to 
extend  to  them  the  circuit  court  system.  Such  has  not  been  the 
practice  of  Congress,  in  regard  to  other  States  in  a  similar  situa- 
tion. I  contend,  however,  that  these  acts  do  impose  an  obligation 
upon  us  to  place  them  "  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
States,"  in  regard  to  the  judiciary,  as  soon  as  their  wants  require 
it,  and  the  circumstances  of  the  country  permit  it  to  be  done. 
That  time  has,  in  my  opinion,  arrived.  Louisiana  has  now  been 
nearly  eighteen  years  a  member  of  the  Union,  and  is  one  of  our 
most  commercial  States;  and  yet,  until  this  day,  she  has  been 
without  a  circuit  court.  It  is  more  than  thirteen  years  since 
Indiana  was  admitted;  and  even  our  youngest  sister,  Missouri, 
will  soon  have  been  nine  years  in  the  family.  Why  should  not 
these  six  States  be  admitted  to  the  same  judicial  privileges  which 
all  the  others  now  enjoy?  Even  if  there  were  no  better  reason, 
they  have  a  right  to  demand  it  for  the  mere  sake  of  uniformity. 
I  admit  this  is  an  argument  dictated  by  State  pride;  but  is  not 
that  a  noble  feeling  ?  Is  it  not  a  feeling  which  will  ever  charac- 
terize freemen  ?  Have  they  not  a  right  to  say  to  us,  if  the  circuit 
court  system  be  good  for  you,  it  will  be  good  for  us  ?  You  have 
no  right  to  exclusive  privileges.  If  you  are  sovereign  States, 
so  are  we.  By  the  terms  of  our  admission,  we  are  perfectly  your 
equals.  We  have  long  submitted  to  the  want  of  this  system,  from 
deference  to  your  judgment;  but  the  day  has  now  arrived  when 
we  demand  it  from  you  as  our  right.  But  there  are  several  other 
good  reasons  why  the  system  ought  to  be  extended  to  these  States. 
And,  in  the  first  place,  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  are 
selected  from  the  very  highest  order  of  the  profession.  There  is 
scarcely  a  lawyer  in  the  United  States  who  would  not  be  proud 
of  an  elevation  to  that  bench.  A  man  ambitious  of  honest  fame 
ought  not  to  desire  a  more  exalted  theatre  for  the  display  of  abil- 
ity and  usefulness.  Besides,  the  salary  annexed  to  this  office  is 
sufficient  to  command  the  best  talents  of  the  country.  I  ask 
you,  sir,  is  it  not  a  serious  grievance  for  those  States  to  be  de- 
prived of  the  services  of  such  a  man  in  their  courts?  I  ask  you 
whether  it  is  equal  justice,  that  whilst,  in  eighteen  States  of  the 
Union,  no  man  can  be  deprived  of  his  life,  his  liberty,  or  his  prop- 
erty, by  the  judgment  of  a  circuit  court,  without  the  concurrence 
of  two  judges,  and  one  of  them  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
in  the  remaining  six  the  fate  of  the  citizen  is  determined  by  the 
decision  of  a  single  district  judge?     Who  are,  generally  speaking, 


438  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

these  district  judges?  In  asking  this  question,  I  mean  to  treat 
them  with  no  disrespect.  They  receive  but  small  salaries,  and 
their  sphere  of  action  is  confined  to  their  own  particular  districts. 
There  is  nothing  either  in  the  salary  or  in  the  station  which  would 
induce  a  distinguished  lawyer,  unless  under  peculiar  circum- 
stances, to  accept  the  appointment.  And  yet  the  judgment  of  this 
individual,  in  six  States  of  the  Union,  is  final  and  conclusive,  in 
all  cases  of  law,  of  equity,  and  of  admiralty  and  maritime  jurisdic- 
tion, wherein  the  amount  of  the  controversy  does  not  exceed  two 
thousand  dollars.  Nay,  the  grievance  is  incomparably  greater. 
His  opinion  in  all  criminal  cases,  no  matter  how  aggravated  may 
be  their  nature,  is  final  and  conclusive.  A  citizen  of  these  States 
may  be  deprived  of  his  life,  or  of  his  character,  which  ought  to 
be  dearer  than  life,  by  the  sentence  of  a  district  judge;  against 
which  there  is  no  redress,  and  from  which  there  can  be  no  appeal. 

There  is  another  point  of  view  in  which  the  inequality  and 
injustice  of  the  present  system,  in  the  new  States,  is  very  striking. 
In  order  to  produce  a  final  decision,  both  the  judges  of  a  circuit 
court  must  concur.  If  they  be  divided  in  opinion,  the  point  of 
difference  is  certified  to  the  Supreme  Court,  for  their  decision; 
and  this,  whether  the  amount  in  controversy  be  great  or  small. 
The  same  rule  applies  to  criminal  cases.  In  such  a  court,  no 
man  can  be  deprived  of  life,  of  liberty,  or  of  property,  by  a 
criminal  prosecution,  without  the  clear  opinion  of  the  two  judges 
that  his  conviction  is  sanctioned  by  the  laws  of  the  land.  If  the 
question  be  doubtful  or  important,  or  if  it  be  one  of  the  first  im- 
pression, the  judges,  even  when  they  do  not  really  differ,  often 
agree  to  divide,  pro  forma,  so  that  the  point  may  be  solemnly 
argued  and  decided  in  the  Supreme  Court.  Thus,  the  citizen  of 
every  State  in  which  a  circuit  court  exists,  has  a  shield  of  pro- 
tection cast  over  him,  of  which  he  cannot  be  deprived,  without 
the  deliberate  opinion  of  two  judges ;  whilst  the  district  judge 
of  the  six  new  Western  States  must  alone  finally  decide  every 
criminal  question,  and  every  civil  controversy  in  which  the  amount 
in  dispute  does  not  exceed  two  thousand  dollars. 

In  the  eastern  district  of  Louisiana,  the  causes  of  admiralty 
and  maritime  jurisdiction  decided  by  the  district  court  must  be 
numerous  and  important.  If  a  circuit  court  were  established 
for  that  State,  a  party  who  considered  himself  aggrieved  might 
appeal  to  it  from  the  district  court  in  every  case  in  which  the 
amount  in  controversy  exceeded  fifty  dollars.  At  present  there 
is  no  appeal,  unless  the  value  of  the  controversy  exceeds  two 


1830]  SPEECH  ON  THE  JUDICIARY  439 

thousand  dollars;  and  then  it  must  be  made  directly  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  a  tribunal  so  far  remote  from  the  city  of  New 
Orleans,  as  to  deter  suitors  from  availing  themselves  of  this 
privilege. 

I  shall  not  further  exhaust  the  patience  of  the  committee 
on  this  branch  of  the  subject.  I  flatter  myself  that  I  have  demon- 
strated the  necessity  for  such  an  alteration  of  the  existing  laws, 
as  will  confer  upon  the  people  of  Ohio,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee, 
and  of  the  six  new  Western  States,  the  same  benefits  from  the 
judiciary,  as  those  which  the  people  of  the  other  States  now  enjoy. 

The  great  question,  then,  which  remains  for  discussion  is, 
does  the  present  bill  present  the  best  plan  for  accomplishing  this 
purpose,  which,  under  all  circumstances,  can  be  devised  ?  It  is  in- 
cumbent upon  me  to  sustain  the  affirmative  of  this  proposition. 
There  have  been  but  two  plans  proposed  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Judiciary,  and  but  two  can  be  proposed,  with  the  least  hope 
of  success.  The  one  an  extension  of  the  present  system,  which 
the  bill  now  before  the  committee  contemplates,  and  the  other 
a  resort  to  the  system  which  was  adopted  in  the  days  of  the  elder 
Adams,  of  detaching  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  from  the 
performance  of  circuit  duties,  and  appointing  circuit  judges  to 
take  their  places.  After  much  reflection  upon  this  subject,  I  do 
not  think  that  the  two  systems  can  be  compared,  without  pro- 
ducing a  conviction  in  favor  of  that  which  has  long  been  estab- 
lished. The  system  of  detaching  the  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  from  the  circuits  has  been  already  tried,  and  it  has  already 
met  the  decided  hostility  of  the  people  of  this  country.  No  act 
passed  during  the  stormy  and  turbulent  administration  of  the 
elder  Adams,  which  excited  more  general  indignation  among  the 
people.  The  courts  which  it  established  were  then,  and  have 
been  ever  since,  branded  with  the  name  of  the  "  midnight  judi- 
ciary." I  am  far  from  being  one  of  those  who  believe  the  people 
to  be  infallible.  They  are  often  deceived  by  the  arts  of  dema- 
gogues :  but  this  deception  endures  only  for  a  season.  They  are 
always  honest,  and  possess  much  sagacity.  If,  therefore,  they  get 
wrong,  it  is  almost  certain  they  will  speedily  return  to  correct 
opinions.  They  have  long  since  done  justice  to  other  acts  of 
that  administration,  which  at  the  time  they  condemned ;  but  the 
feeling  against  the  judiciary  established  under  it  remains  the 
same.  Indeed,  many  now  condemn  that  system,  who  were  for- 
merly its  advocates.  In  1826,  when  a  bill,  similar  in  its  provi- 
sions to  the  bill  now  before  the  committee,  was  under  discussion 


440  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

in  this  House,  a  motion  was  made  by  a  gentleman  from  Virginia 
[Mr.  Mercer]  to  recommit  it  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 
with  an  instruction  so  to  amend  it,  as  to  discharge  the  judges  of 
the  Supreme  Court  from  attendance  on  the  circuit  courts,  and  to 
provide  a  uniform  system  for  the  administration  of  justice  in  the 
inferior  courts  of  the  United  States.  Although  this  motion  was 
sustained  with  zeal  and  eloquence  and  ability  by  the  mover,  and 
by  several  other  gentlemen,  yet,  when  it  came  to  the  vote,  it  was 
placed  in  a  lean  minority,  and,  I  believe,  was  negatived  without 
a  division.  It  is  morally  certain  that  such  a  bill  could  not  now  be 
carried.  It  would  therefore  have  been  vain  and  idle  in  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Judiciary  to  have  reported  such  a  bill.  If  the 
Western  States  should  be  doomed  to  wait  for  a  redress  of  their 
grievances,  until  public  opinion  shall  change  upon  this  subject, 
it  will,  probably,  be  a  long  time  before  they  will  obtain  relief. 

But,  sir,  there  are  most  powerful  reasons  for  believing  that 
public  opinion  upon  this  subject  is  correct.  What  would  be  the 
natural  consequences  of  detaching  the  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  from  circuit  duties  ?  It  would  bring  them  and  their  fami- 
lies from  the  circuits  in  which  they  now  reside;  and  this  city 
would  become  their  permanent  residence.  They  would  naturally 
come  here ;  because  here,  and  no  where  else,  would  they  then  have 
official  business  to  transact.  What  would  be  the  probable  effect 
of  such  a  change  of  residence?  The  tendency  of  every  thing 
within  the  ten  miles  square  is  towards  the  Executive  of  the  Union. 
He  is  here  the  centre  of  attraction.  No  matter  what  political 
revolutions  may  take  place,  no  matter  who  may  be  up  or  who  may 
be  down,  the  proposition  is  equally  true.  Human  nature  is  not 
changed  under  a  republican  Government.  We  find  that  citizens 
of  a  republic  are  worshippers  of  power,  as  well  as  the  subjects 
of  a  monarchy.  Would  you  think  it  wise  to  bring  the  justices  of 
the  Supreme  Court  from  their  residence  in  the  States,  where  they 
breathe  the  pure  air  of  the  country,  and  assemble  them  here 
within  the  very  vortex  of  Executive  influence?  Instead  of  being 
independent  judges,  scattered  over  the  surface  of  the  Union,  their 
feelings  identified  with  the  States  of  which  they  are  citizens,  is 
there  no  danger,  that,  in  the  lapse  of  time,  you  would  convert  them 
into  minions  of  the  Executive  ?  I  am  far,  very  far,  from  suppos- 
ing that  any  man,  who  either  is  or  who  will  be  a  justice  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  could  be  actually  corrupted;  but  if  you  place 
them  in  a  situation  where  they  or  their  relatives  would  naturally 
become  candidates   for  Executive  patronage,   you  place  them, 


1830]  SPEECH  ON  THE  JUDICIARY  441 

in  some  degree,  under  the  control  of  Executive  influence.  If 
there  should  now  exist  any  just  cause  for  the  complaints  against 
the  Supreme  Court,  that  in  their  decisions  they  are  partial  to 
federal  rather  than  to  State  authority,  (and  I  do  not  say  that  there 
is,)  that  which  at  present  may  be  but  an  imaginary  fear  might 
soon  become  a  substantial  reality.  I  would  place  them  beyond 
the  reach  of  temptation.  I  would  suffer  them  to  remain,  as  they 
are  at  present,  citizens  of  their  respective  States,  visiting  this  city 
annually  to  discharge  their  high  duties,  as  members  of  the 
Supreme  Court.  This  single  view  of  the  subject,  if  there  were 
no  other,  ought  in  my  judgment  to  be  conclusive. 

Let  us  now  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  the 
withdrawal  of  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  from  their 
circuit  duties,  and  their  residence  in  this  city,  would  produce 
no  such  effects,  as  I  apprehend,  upon  the  judges  themselves; 
what  would  be  the  probable  effect  upon  public  opinion?  It  has 
been  said,  and  wisely  said,  that  the  first  object  of  every  judicial 
tribunal  ought  to  be  to  do  justice;  the  second,  to  satisfy  the 
people  that  justice  has  been  done.  It  is  of  the  utmost  importance 
in  this  country  that  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  should 
possess  the  confidence  of  the  public.  This  they  now  do  in  an 
eminent  degree.  How  have  they  acquired  it?  By  travelling 
over  their  circuits,  and  personally  showing  themselves  to  the 
people  of  the  country,  in  the  able  and  honest  discharge  of  their 
high  duties,  and  by  their  extensive  intercourse  with  the  members 
of  the  profession  on  the  circuits  in  each  State,  who  after  all 
are  the  best  judges  of  judicial  merit,  and  whose  opinions  upon 
this  subject  have  a  powerful  influence  upon  the  community.  Ele- 
vated above  the  storms  of  faction  and  of  party  which  have  some- 
times lowered  over  us,  like  the  sun,  they  have  pursued  their  steady 
course,  unawed  by  threats,  unseduced  by  flattery.  They  have 
thus  acquired  that  public  confidence,  which  never  fails  to  follow 
the  performance  of  great  and  good  actions,  when  brought  home 
to  the  personal  observation  of  the  people. 

Would  they  continue  to  enjoy  this  extensive  public  confi- 
dence, should  they  no  longer  be  seen  by  the  people  of  the  States, 
in  the  discharge  of  their  high  and  important  duties,  but  be  con- 
fined, in  the  exercise  of  them,  to  the  gloomy  and  vaulted  apart- 
ment which  they  now  occupy  in  this  capitol?  Would  they  not 
be  considered  as  a  distant  and  dangerous  tribunal?  Would  the 
people,  when  excited  by  strong  feeling,  patiently  submit  to  have 
the  most  solemn  acts  of  their  State  Legislatures  swept  from  the 


442  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

statute  book,  by  the  decision  of  judges  whom  they  never  saw, 
and  whom  they  had  been  taught  to  consider  with  jealousy  and 
suspicion?  At  present,  even  in  those  States  where  their  decis- 
ions have  been  most  violently  opposed,  the  highest  respect  has 
been  felt  for  the  judges  by  whom  they  were  pronounced;  be- 
cause the  people  have  had  an  opportunity  of  personally  knowing 
that  they  were  both  great  and  good  men.  Look  at  the  illustrious 
individual  who  is  now  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States. 
His  decisions  upon  constitutional  questions  have  ever  been  hostile 
to  the  opinions  of  a  vast  majority  of  the  people  of  his  own  State; 
and  yet  with  what  respect  and  veneration  has  he  been  viewed  by 
Virginia  ?  Is  there  a  Virginian,  whose  heart  does  not  beat  with 
honest  pride  when  the  just  fame  of  the  Chief  Justice  is  the  subject 
of  conversation?  They  consider  him,  as  he  truly  is,  one  of  the 
greatest  and  best  men  which  this  country  has  ever  produced. 
Think  ye  that  such  would  have  been  the  case,  had  he  been  con- 
fined to  the  city  of  Washington,  and  never  known  to  the  people, 
except  in  pronouncing  judgments  in  this  capitol,  annulling  their 
State  laws,  and  calculated  to  humble  their  State  pride?  Whilst 
I  continue  to  be  a  member  of  this  House,  I  shall  never  incur  the 
odium  of  giving  a  vote  for  any  change  in  the  judiciary  system, 
the  effect  of  which  would,  in  my  opinion,  diminish  the  respect 
in  which  the  Supreme  Court  is  now  held  by  the  people  of  this 
country. 

The  judges  whom  you  would  appoint  to  perform  the  circuit 
duties,  if  able  and  honest  men,  would  soon  take  the  place  which 
the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  now  occupy  in  the  affections 
of  the  people;  and  the  reversal  of  their  judgments,  when  they 
happened  to  be  in  accordance  with  strong  public  feeling,  would 
naturally  increase  the  mass  of  discontent  against  the  Supreme 
Court. 

There  are  other  reasons,  equally  powerful,  against  the  with- 
drawal of  the  judges  from  the  circuits.  What  effect  would  such 
a  measure  probably  produce  upon  the  ability  of  the  judges  them- 
selves to  perform  their  duties?  Would  it  not  be  very  unfor- 
tunate ? 

No  judges  upon  earth  ever  had  such  various  and  important 
duties  to  perform,  as  the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court.  In  Eng- 
land, whence  we  have  derived  our  laws,  they  have  distinct  courts 
of  equity,  courts  of  common  law,  courts  of  admiralty,  and  courts 
in  which  the  civil  law  is  administered.  In  each  of  these  courts, 
they  have  distinct  judges;  and  perfection  in  any  of  these  branches 


1830]  SPEECH  ON  THE  JUDICIARY  443 

is  certain  to  be  rewarded  by  the  honors  of  that  country.  The 
judges  of  our  Supreme  Court,  both  on  their  circuits  and  in  bank, 
are  called  upon  to  adjudicate  on  all  these  codes.  But  this  is  not 
all.  Our  Union  consists  of  twenty-four  sovereign  States,  in  all 
of  which  there  are  different  laws  and  peculiar  customs.  The 
common  and  equity  law  have  thus  been  changed  and  inflected 
into  a  hundred  different  shapes,  and  adapted  to  the  various  wants 
and  opinions  of  the  different  members  of  our  confederacy.  The 
judicial  act  of  1789  declares  "  that  the  laws  of  the  several 
States,  except  where  the  constitution,  treaties,  or  statutes  of  the 
United  States  shall  otherwise  require  or  provide,"  shall  be  re- 
garded as  rules  of  decision  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States. 
The  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  ought,  therefore,  to  be 
acquainted  with  the  ever-varying  codes  of  the  different  States. 

There  is  still  another  branch  of  their  jurisdiction,  of  a  grand 
and  imposing  character,  which  places  them  far  above  the  cele- 
brated Amphyctionic  council.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  has  made  them  the  arbiters  between  conflicting  sovereigns. 
They  decide  whether  the  sovereign  power  of  the  States  has  been 
exercised  in  conformity  with  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States;  and,  if  this  has  not  been  done,  they  declare  the 
laws  of  the  State  Legislatures  to  be  void.  Their  decisions  thus 
control  the  exercise  of  sovereign  power.  No  tribunal  ever  ex- 
isted, possessing  the  same,  or  even  similar  authority.  Now,  sir, 
suppose  you  bring  these  judges  to  Washington,  and  employ  them 
in  bank  but  six  weeks  or  two  months  in  the  year,  is  it  not  certain 
that  they  will  gradually  become  less  and  less  fit  to  decide  upon 
these  different  codes,  and  that  they  will  at  length  nearly  lose  all 
recollection  of  the  peculiar  local  laws  of  the  different  States? 
Every  judicial  duty  which  each  of  them  would  then  be  required 
to  perform,  would  be  to  prepare  and  deliver  a  few  opinions 
annually  in  bank. 

The  judgment,  like  every  other  faculty  of  the  mind,  requires 
exercise  to  preserve  its  vigor.  That  judge  who  decides  the  most 
causes,  is  likely  to  decide  them  the  best.  He  who  is  in  the  daily 
habit  of  applying  general  principles  to  the  decision  of  cases,  as 
they  arise  upon  the  circuits,  is  at  the  same  time  qualifying  himself 
in  the  best  manner  for  the  duties  of  his  station  on  the  bench 
of  the  Supreme  Court. 

Is  it  probable  that  the  long  literary  leisure  of  the  judges  in 
this  city,  during  ten  months  of  the  year,  would  be  devoted  to 
searching  the  two  hundred  volumes  of  jarring  decisions  of  State 


444  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

courts,  or  in  studying  the  acts  of  twenty- four  State  Legislatures  ? 
The  man  must  have  a  singular  taste  and  a  firm  resolution,  who, 
in  his  closet,  could  travel  over  this  barren  waste.  And  even  if  he 
should,  what  would  be  the  consequence?  The  truth  is,  such 
knowledge  cannot  be  obtained;  and  after  it  has  been  acquired, 
it  cannot  be  preserved,  except  by  constant  practice.  There  are 
subjects  which,  when  the  memory  has  once  grasped,  it  retains  for 
ever.  It  has  no  such  attachment  for  acts  of  Assembly,  acts  of 
Congress,  and  reports  of  adjudged  cases,  fixing  their  construction. 
This  species  of  knowledge,  under  the  present  system,  will  always 
be  possessed  by  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court;  because,  in  the 
performance  of  their  circuit  duties,  they  are  placed  in  a  situation 
in  which  it  is  daily  expounded  to  them,  and  in  which  they  are  daily 
compelled  to  decide  questions  arising  upon  it.  Change  this  sys- 
tem, make  them  exclusively  judges  of  an  appellate  court,  and  you 
render  it  highly  probable  that  their  knowledge  of  the  general 
principles  of  the  laws  of  their  country  will  become  more  and 
more  faint,  and  that  they  will  finally  almost  lose  the  recollection 
of  the  peculiar  local  systems  of  the  different  States.  "  Practice 
makes  perfect,"  is  a  maxim  applicable  to  every  pursuit  in  life. 
It  applies  with  peculiar  force  to  that  of  a  judge.  I  think  I  might 
appeal  for  the  truth  of  this  position  to  the  long  experience  of  the 
distinguished  gentleman  from  New  York,  now  by  my  side,  [Mr. 
Spencer.]  A  man,  by  study,  may  become  a  profound  lawyer  in 
theory,  but  nothing  except  practice  can  make  him  an  able  judge. 
I  call  upon  every  member  of  the  profession  in  this  House  to  say 
whether  he  does  not  feel  himself  to  be  a  better  lawyer  at  the  end 
of  a  long  term,  than  at  the  beginning.  It  is  the  circuit  employ- 
ment, imposed  upon  the  judges  of  England  and  the  United  States, 
which  has  rendered  them  what  they  are.  In  my  opinion,  both  the 
usefulness  and  the  character  of  the  Supreme  Court  depend  much 
upon  its  continuance. 

I  now  approach  what  I  know  will  be  urged  as  the  greatest 
objection  to  the  passage  of  this  bill — that  it  will  extend  the  num- 
ber of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  nine.  If  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  country  required  that  their  number  should  be  increased 
to  ten,  I  would  feel  no  objection  to  such  a  measure.  The  time 
has  not  yet  arrived,  however,  when,  in  my  opinion,  such  a  neces- 
sity exists.  Gentlemen,  in  considering  this  subject,  ought  to  take 
those  extended  views  which  belong  to  statesmen.  When  we 
reflect  upon  the  vast  extent  of  our  country,  and  the  various  sys- 
tems of  law  under  which  the  people  of  the  different  States  are 


1830]  SPEECH  ON  THE  JUDICIARY  445 

governed,  I  cannot  conceive  that  nine  or  even  ten  judges  are  too 
great  a  number  to  compose  our  appellate  tribunal.  That  num- 
ber would  afford  a  judicial  representation  upon  the  bench  of  each 
large  portion  of  the  Union.  Not,  sir,  a  representation  of  sectional 
feelings  or  of  the  party  excitements  of  the  day,  but  of  that  pecu- 
liar species  of  legal  knowledge  necessary  to  adjudicate  wisely  upon 
the  laws  of  the  different  States.  For  example,  I  ask  what  judge 
now  upon  the  bench  possesses,  or  can  possess,  a  practical  knowl- 
edge of  the  laws  of  Louisiana  ?  Their  system  is  so  peculiar,  that 
it  is  almost  impossible  for  a  man  to  decide  correctly  upon  all  cases 
arising  under  it,  who  has  never  been  practically  acquainted  with 
the  practice  of  their  courts.  Increase  the  number  of  judges  to 
nine,  and  you  will  then  have  them  scattered  throughout  all  the 
various  portions  of  the  Union.  The  streams  of  legal  knowledge 
peculiar  to  the  different  States  will  then  flow  to  the  bench  of  the 
Supreme  Court  as  to  a  great  reservoir,  from  whence  they  will  be 
distributed  throughout  the  Union.  There  will  then  always  be 
sufficient  local  information  upon  the  bench,  if  I  may  use  the 
expression,  to  detect  all  the  ingenious  fallacies  of  the  bar,  and 
to  enable  them  to  decide  correctly  upon  local  questions.  I  admit, 
if  the  judges  were  confined  to  appellate  duties  alone,  nine  or  ten 
would  probably  be  too  great  a  number.  Then  there  might  be 
danger  that  some  of  them  would  become  mere  non-entities,  con- 
tenting themselves  simply  with  voting  aye  or  no  in  the  majority 
or  minority.  There  would  then  also  be  danger  that  the  Execu- 
tive might  select  inefficient  men  for  this  high  station,  who  were 
his  personal  favorites,  expecting  their  incapacity  to  be  shielded 
from  public  observation  by  the  splendid  talents  of  some  of  the 
other  judges  upon  the  bench.  Under  the  present  system  we  have 
no  such  danger  to  apprehend.  Each  judge  must  now  feel  his  own 
personal  responsibility.  He  is  obliged  to  preside  in  the  courts 
throughout  his  circuit,  and  to  bring  home  the  law  and  the  justice 
of  his  country  to  his  fellow-citizens  in  each  of  the  districts  of 
which  it  is  composed.  Much  is  expected  from  a  judge  placed  in 
his  exalted  station;  and  he  must  attain  to  the  high  standard  of 
public  opinion  by  which  he  is  judged,  or  incur  the  reproach  of 
holding  an  office  to  which  he  is  not  entitled.  No  man  in  any  sta- 
tion in  this  country  can  place  himself  above  public  opinion. 

Upon  the  subject  of  judicial  appointments,  public  opinion 
has  always  been  correct.  No  factious  demagogue,  no  man, 
merely  because  he  has  sung  hosannas  to  the  powers  that  be,  can 
arrive  at  the  bench  of  the  Supreme  Court.     The  Executive  him- 


446  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

self  will  always  be  constrained  by  the  force  of  public  sentiment, 
whilst  the  present  system  continues,  to  select  judges  for  that  court 
from  the  ablest  and  best  men  of  the  circuit;  and  such  has  been 
the  course  which  he  has  hitherto  almost  invariably  pursued. 
Were  he  to  pursue  any  other,  he  would  inevitably  incur  popular 
odium.  Under  the  existing  system,  there  can  be  no  danger  in 
increasing  the  number  of  the  judges  to  nine.  But  take  them  from 
their  circuits,  destroy  their  feeling  of  personal  responsibility  by 
removing  them  from  the  independent  courts  over  which  they 
now  preside,  and  make  them  merely  an  appellate  tribunal,  and  I 
admit  there  would  be  danger,  not  only  of  improper  appointments, 
but  that  a  portion  of  them,  in  the  lapse  of  time,  might  become 
incompetent  to  discharge  the  duties  of  their  station. 

But,  Sir,  have  we  no  examples  of  appellate  courts  consist- 
ing of  a  greater  number  than  either  nine  or  ten  judges,  which 
have  been  approved  by  experience?  The  Senate  of  the  State  of 
New  York  has  always  been  their  court  of  appeals ;  and,  notwith- 
standing they  changed  their  constitution  a  few  years  ago,  so 
much  were  the  people  attached  to  this  court,  that  it  remains  un- 
changed. In  England,  the  twelve  judges,  in  fact,  compose  the 
court  of  appeals.  Whenever  the  House  of  Lords  sits  in  a  judicial 
character,  they  are  summoned  to  attend,  and  their  opinions  are 
decisive  of  almost  every  question.  I  do  not  pretend  to  speak 
accurately,  but  I  doubt  whether  the  House  of  Lords  have  de- 
cided two  cases,  in  opposition  to  the  opinion  of  the  judges,  for 
the  last  fifty  years.  In  England  there  is  also  the  court  of  ex- 
chequer chamber,  consisting  of  the  twelve  judges,  and  sometimes 
of  the  lord  chancellor  also,  into  which  such  causes  may  be  ad- 
journed from  the  three  superior  courts,  as  the  judges  find  to 
be  difficult  of  decision,  before  any  judgment  is  given  upon  them 
in  the  court  in  which  they  originated.  The  court  of  exchequer 
chamber  is  also  a  court  of  appeals,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the 
word,  in  many  cases  which  I  shall  not  take  time  to  enumerate. 

I  cannot  avoid  believing  that  the  prejudice  which  exists  in 
the  minds  of  some  gentlemen,  against  increasing  the  number  of 
the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  nine,  arises  from  the  circum- 
stance that  the  appellate  courts  of  the  different  States  generally 
consist  of  a  fewer  number.  But  is  there  not  a  striking  difference 
between  the  cases?  It  does  not  follow  that  because  four  or  five 
may  be  a  sufficient  number  in  a  single  State  where  one  uniform 
system  of  laws  prevails,  nine  or  ten  would  be  too  many  on  the 
bench  of  the  Supreme  Court,   which  administers  the  laws  of 


1830]  SPEECH  ON  THE  JUDICIARY  447 

twenty-four  States,  and  decides  questions  arising  under  all  the 
codes  in  use  in  the  civilized  world.  Indeed,  if  four  or  five  judges 
be  not  too  many  for  the  court  of  appeals  in  a  State,  it  is  a  strong 
argument  that  nine  or  ten  are  not  too  great  a  number  for  the 
court  of  appeals  of  the  Union.  Upon  the  whole,  I  ask,  would  it 
be  wise  in  this  committee,  disregarding  the  voice  of  experience, 
to  destroy  a  system  which  has  worked  well  in  practice  for  forty 
years,  and  resort  to  a  dangerous  and  untried  experiment,  merely 
from  a  vague  apprehension  that  nine  judges  will  destroy  the  use- 
fulness and  character  of  that  court,  which  has  been  raised  by  seven 
to  its  present  exalted  elevation. 

It  will,  no  doubt,  be  objected  to  this  bill,  as  it  has  been  upon 
a  former  occasion,  that  the  present  system  cannot  be  permanent, 
and  that,  ere  long,  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Courts  must,  from 
necessity,  be  withdrawn  from  their  circuits.  To  this  objection 
there  is  a  conclusive  answer.  We  know  that  the  system  is  now 
sufficient  for  the  wants  of  the  country,  and  let  posterity  provide 
for  themselves.  Let  us  not  establish  courts  which  are  unneces- 
sary in  the  present  day,  because  we  believe  that  hereafter  they 
may  be  required  to  do  the  business  of  the  country. 

But,  if  it  were  necessary,  I  believe  it  might  be  demonstrated 
that  ten  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  will  be  sufficient  to  do  all 
the  judicial  business  of  the  country  which  is  required  of  them 
under  the  present  system,  until  the  youngest  member  of  this 
House  shall  be  sleeping  with  his  fathers.  Six  judges  have  done 
all  the  business  of  the  States  east  of  the  Alleghany  mountains, 
from  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  up  till  this  day; 
and  still  their  duties  are  not  laborious.  If  it  should  be  deemed 
proper  by  Congress,  these  fifteen  Eastern  States  might  be 
arranged  into  five  circuits  instead  of  six,  upon  the  occurrence 
of  the  next  vacancy  in  any  of  them,  without  the  least  incon- 
venience either  to  the  judges  or  to  the  people ;  and  thus  it  would 
be  rendered  unnecessary  to  increase  the  bench  of  the  Supreme 
Court  beyond  nine,  even  after  the  admission  of  Michigan  and 
Arkansas  into  the  Union.  The  business  of  the  federal  courts, 
except  in  a  few  States,  will  probably  increase  but  little  for  a  long 
time  to  come.  One  branch  of  it  must,  before  many  years,  be 
entirely  lopped  away.  I  allude  to  the  controversies  between  citi- 
zens of  the  same  State  claiming  lands  under  grants  from  different 
States.  This  will  greatly  diminish  their  business  both  in  Ten- 
nessee and  Kentucky.  Besides,  the  State  tribunals  will  gener- 
ally be  preferred  by  aliens  and  by  citizens  of  other  States  for  the 


448  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

mere  recovery  of  debts,  on  account  of  their  superior  expedition. 

I  should  here  close  my  remarks,  if  it  were  not  necessary  to 
direct  the  attention  of  the  committee  for  a  few  minutes  to  the 
details  of  the  bill.  And  here  permit  me  to  express  my  regret  that 
my  friend  from  Kentucky  [Mr.  Wickliffe]  has  thought  proper  to 
propose  an  amendment  to  add  three,  instead  of  two,  judges  to 
the  Supreme  Court.  Had  a  majority  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Judiciary  believed  ten  judges,  instead  of  nine,  to  be  necessary, 
I  should  have  yielded  my  opinion,  as  I  did  upon  a  former  occa- 
sion, and  given  the  bill  my  support  in  the  House.  This  I  should 
have  done,  to  prevent  division  among  its  friends,  believing  it  to 
be  a  mere  question  of  time:  for  ten  will  become  necessary  in  a 
few  years,  unless  the  number  of  the  Eastern  circuits  should  be 
reduced  to  five. 

[Here  Mr.  Wickliffe  asked  if  it  were  in  order  to  refer  to 
his  amendment,  as  it  was  not  yet  before  the  committee.] 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  would  not  further  refer  to  it  at  pres- 
ent. The  bill  proposes  to  create  one  new  circuit  out  of  Missis- 
sippi, the  eastern  district  of  Louisiana,  and  the  southern  district 
of  Alabama.  Nature  has  united  these  three  districts.  They  can- 
not be  separated  without  violence.  There  is  a  communication  by 
water,  between  Natchez,  New  Orleans,  and  Mobile,  the  places 
at  which  the  circuit  courts  will  be  held  for  the  whole  distance, 
which  is  always  safe  and  expeditious.  No  other  arrangement 
could  have  been  made,  unless  Alabama  had  been  connected  with 
Tennessee;  and  that  would  have  been  extremely  inconvenient. 
I  have  a  certificate  from  the  Post  Office  Department  in  my  posses- 
sion, stating  the  distance  from  Nashville  to  Mobile  to  be  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty-nine  miles.  The  road  is  not  good,  the  streams 
are  not  bridged,  and  it  passes  through  a  new  country,  and  part 
of  the  way  through  an  Indian  nation.  In  order  to  attend  the 
circuit  court  at  Mobile,  the  judge  would  be  compelled  to  travel 
over  this  road,  from  a  healthy  into  a  sickly  climate,  twice  in  each 
year,  a  total  distance  of  one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  fifty- 
six  miles;  and  this,  when  he  could  reach  Mobile,  either  from 
Natchez  or  New  Orleans,  by  water,  in  two  or  three  days. 

The  circuit  court  cannot  be  removed  from  Mobile,  and  placed 
nearer  to  Nashville.  It  is  there  that  admiralty  and  maritime 
causes  arise  and  must  be  decided  in  the  district  court,  from  which 
an  appeal  is  allowed  to  the  circuit  court.  It  is  at  that  commercial 
point  the  citizens  of  Alabama  chiefly  come  into  contact  in  their 
commercial  transactions  with  the  citizens  of  other  States  and  with 


1830]  SPEECH  ON  THE  JUDICIARY  449 

foreigners ;  and  there  the  chief  civil  business  of  the  circuit  court 
must  arise.  But,  above  all,  it  is  there,  near  the  verge  of  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico,  where  offences  against  the  United  States  com- 
mitted upon  the  high  seas  must  be  tried  and  punished. 

Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  under  this  bill,  compose  the  other 
new  circuit;  and  however  reluctant  these  States  may  be  to  go 
together,  I  do  not  perceive  how  they  can  be  separated,  without 
imposing  more  labor  upon  some  one  of  the  Western  judges  than 
he  ought  to  be  called  upon  to  perform. 

In  regard  to  the  other  Western  circuit,  consisting  of  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Missouri,  I  admit  that  it  will  embrace 
a  large  extent  of  territory.  I  am  sorry  for  it,  but  it  cannot  be 
avoided.  We  ought,  however,  to  consider  that,  if  the  judge  shall 
be  compelled  to  travel  much,  a  great  part  of  it  will  be  by  water. 
He  will  have  but  little  business  to  transact  in  any  of  the  States 
of  which  it  is  composed,  except  Ohio.  It  is  probable,  too,  that 
ere  long  public  convenience  will  suggest  the  removal  of  the  circuit 
courts  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois  from  the  seats  of  government 
of  those  States  to  the  Ohio  river;  and  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive 
any  good  reason  why  the  circuit  court  of  Missouri  should  not  be 
held  at  St.  Louis. 

After  all,  I  regret  that  necessity  has  compelled  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Judiciary  to  report  a  bill,  which,  if  it  should  pass, 
will  impose  so  much  travel  on  the  judge  of  the  seventh  circuit. 
No  man  would  be  more  disposed  to  relieve  that  distinguished 
individual  from  unnecessary  labor  than  myself.  I  feel  confident 
he  will  never  complain.  The  man  who,  by  the  exertion  of  great 
ability,  incessant  labor,  and  untiring  perseverance,  brought  the 
Post  Office  Department  from  chaos  into  order,  will  never  shrink 
from  the  performance  of  any  duty  required  of  him  by  his  country. 

Another  remark,  and  I  have  done.  This  bill  does  not  pro- 
vide a  circuit  court  for  the  western  district  of  Louisiana,  and 
the  northern  district  of  Alabama.  In  this  respect,  these  districts 
are  placed  upon  the  same  footing  with  the  northern  district  of 
New  York,  the  western  district  of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  western 
district  of  Virginia.  I  possess  no  actual  information  concerning 
the  amount  of  business  in  the  northern  district  of  Alabama;  but 
from  its  position  it  cannot  be  great.  I  have  the  best  information 
that  there  is  but  little  business  in  the  western  district  of  Louisiana. 
At  all  events,  neither  Louisiana  nor  Alabama  will  complain,  when 
they  are  placed  upon  the  same  footing  with  New  York,  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  Virginia. 

29 


450  THE  WORKS  OF  JAMES  BUCHANAN  [1830 

REMARKS,  FEBRUARY  10,  1830, 

ON  DIPLOMATIC  EXPENSES. » 

Mr.  Buchanan  said,  he  had  not  expected  that  the  House 
would  have  entered  into  a  party  debate  upon  this  question,  and 
he  trusted  it  would  not  now  seriously  engage  in  such  a  discussion. 
The  two  gentlemen  who  had  addressed  the  House  upon  different 
sides  of  the  question,  appeared  to  him  to  have  taken  but  a  narrow 
view  of  the  subject.  It  was  decidedly  his  opinion  that,  in  our 
intercourse  with  foreign  nations,  we  should  pursue  a  liberal  and 
wise,  rather  than  a  narrow  and  short-sighted  policy.  It  was  the 
interest  and  the  duty  of  this  country  to  cherish  the  good  opinion 
of  foreign  nations;  and  in  our  intercourse  with  them,  if  we 
acted  upon  narrow  principles,  we  might  find  that,  in  realizing 
a  small  gain,  the  country  might  sustain  a  heavy  loss.  We  should 
view  this  subject  as  statesmen,  and  never  hesitate  to  provide  the 
means  necessary  to  enable  the  Executive  to  sustain  both  the  char- 
acter and  the  cause  of  this  country,  in  intercourse  with  other  na- 
tions. Mr.  B.  said  he  was,  therefore,  astonished  to  hear  gentle- 
men comparing  the  relative  cost  of  our  foreign  intercourse  in 
different  years,  and  under  different  administrations,  as  if  there 
were  no  other  question  to  be  considered,  but  which  administration 
had  spent  the  least  money. 

Sir,  [said  Mr.  B.]  I  was  one  of  those  who  condemned  the 
last  administration,  not  so  much  on  account  of  the  amount  of  its 
expenditures  in  our  foreign  intercourse,  as  because,  in  practice, 
it  repealed  the  law  of  1810.  A  practice  had  grown  up  within  the 
last  twenty  years,  which  at  least  violated  both  the  letter  and  the 
spirit  of  that  act.  One  precedent  in  violation  of  law  was  estab- 
lished, which  gave  birth  to  many  others.  At  last  this  act  was 
so  wholly  disregarded  by  the  last  administration,  that  they  suf- 
fered a  minister,  upon  leaving  a  foreign  country,  to  convert  his 
secretary  of  legation  into  a  charge  des  affaires,  and  as  such  paid 
a  full  salary  and  outfit,  although  he  returned  home  a  very  short 
time  after  the  minister.  This  was  not  only  without  law,  but 
expressly  against  law.  He  had  not  the  least  right  to  such  an 
allowance.  It  was  not  a  question  whether  the  contingent  fund 
ought  to  have  been  resorted  to  for  his  payment ;  but  it  was  a  case 
in  which  the  President  had  no  right,  under  the  law,  to  allow 


Register  of  Debates,  21   Cong.  1  Sess.  1829-1830,  VI.,  part  1,  pp.  558- 
559- 


1830]  DIPLOMATIC  EXPENSES  451 

him  one  cent,  out  of  any  fund,  beyond  his  salary  as  secretary  of 
legation.  Mr.  B.  was  willing  that  those  matters  should  now  rest 
in  oblivion,  and  he  would  never  voluntarily  call  them  forth  to  the 
light.  He  had  opposed  the  practice  of  the  last  administration, 
not  because  they  had  paid  just  demands  out  of  the  contingent 
fund,  but  because  they  had  made  donations  to  individuals  in 
express  violation  of  the  existing  laws. 

Mr.  B.  said,  the  true  reason  why  the  appropriation  necessary 
for  our  foreign  intercourse  was  greater  the  present  than  it  had 
been  the  past  year,  was,  that  several  of  our  ministers  had  been 
recalled,  and  others  had  been  appointed  in  their  stead,  whom  it 
was  necessary  to  provide  with  outfits.  Would  any  gentleman 
question  the  right  of  the  Executive  to  pursue  this  course?  For 
this  conduct  he  was  answerable  to  no  tribunal  but  that  of  the 
American  people.  The  appointment  of  foreign  ministers  was 
peculiarly  within  the  province  of  the  Executive.  The  constitu- 
tion and  laws  of  the  United  States  had  reposed  in  him  this  dis- 
cretion; and  it  must  be  an  extreme  case  indeed  in  which  the 
House  of  Representatives  ought  to  withhold  the  necessary  appro- 
priation. He  presumed  no  gentleman  in  the  House  would  say 
that  such  a  case  now  existed.  He  had  risen  to  say  thus  much; 
and  he  hoped  to  see  the  appropriation  made  without  further 
discussion. 


OF  THE     -  , 

UNIVERSITY 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT  173^0 
TO— ^      202  Main  Library  x  '  uo 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2                    : 

3 

4 

5                               ( 

b 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

JAN  2  4  1992 

auto  niw  OPT  ?4  '9 

1 

AU ! U  vlav  UUl  e.^    ^ 

AUG  2  8  19 

33 

AiiTnmsrriRC 

Jin  28 '93 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


/ 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


CD3flH411E7 


1  S&543 


